Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

Daily on Alex Moffett; Coretta sidelined; dirty classified; parasites

1. February 2006 • David Boyle
Email this article

Was not going to write for while about Daily; but updating some old stuff: following my previous post “Student complaints about Daily at 12/15 Regents’ meeting” which mentioned Alex Moffett, I note that the Daily, in Monday’s “Amid controversy, NAACP VP resigns: Prompted by state NAACP chapter, divisive vice president Alex Moffett steps down”, calls Moffett “divisive” with little reason, perhaps—as she herself notes at her Xanga website,

”...but in light of recent events i’ve realized that certain powers that be at the university of michigan (namely the michigan daily) have devoided me of every inch of privacy i had left. my personal phone number has been recklessly abused by the majority of their staff. countless requests to please stop calling have been ignored. between the calls on my personal phone, the emails, intrusion onto my facebook page… and finally… quoting my XANGA on the front page of the michigan daily. i have had enough…”

The Daily has actually done some good work recently, e.g., their editorial condemning Michigamua’s racist ethos. Still, their Moffett article (I hope it was not at all in reprisal for her condemning the Daily at a UM Regents’ meeting) makes me wonder. ...Also, today they put the Coretta Scott King obituary on page 2, not the front page, and consigned her name to the smaller print, “Martin Luther King’s wife passes away at 78: Coretta Scott King became a civil rights leader after her husband’s death”. (Shouldn’t she have been front-paged???)
(Re respect for women, let me also toss in an item from today’s Daily classifieds,

“NEED MONEY FOR spring break? Attractive females wanted for nude and semi nude [sic] modeling. Great pay, flexible hours. 734-[ ]-[ ].”
I wonder how many women have been drugged/raped/killed over the years after answering ads for nudie stuff. A slutty and dangerous monstrosity, certain ads are.)

Well, I hope Donn “Gripped as if by the pangs of some insatiable parasitic beast” (from the 1/27 Daily’s Jeopardy, uh, “Silly Senior Salute Something” issue) Fresard is looking around for a worthy female and/or minority successor.

God bless you Coretta. We need you more than ever.

  1. Re Coretta Scott King as “wife”, see, e.g., today’s Free Press, Rochelle Riley’s eulogy, “Not just a national hero’s wife, she fulfilled her own mission” at http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060201/OPINION02/ 602010341/1122.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 1 '06 - 11:40PM    #
  2. David, push the “newsy” levels up and the “chatty” levels down, please.
       —Dale    Feb. 1 '06 - 11:43PM    #
  3. How’s the “City Council Drinking Game”? (heh)
       —David Boyle    Feb. 2 '06 - 12:01AM    #
  4. David, it’s pretty obvious that the ad in question solicits females for erotic photo shoots…whether or not the enterprise is “slutty” or results in date rape or murder is another thing entirely. I realize you’re just trying to make the Daily accountable for its material, but to be fair you’re only making life difficult for figure models like myself.

    I hardly think this ad represents a threat to women, and whether it’s intended or not I find your response, ironically, a tad mysogynistic. Maybe it’s the whole “slutty” thing. I agree that there’s a good deal of questionable “journalism” at the Daily; however, I think an ad that solicits figure modeling opportunities is hardly our biggest concern.
       —Margaret    Feb. 2 '06 - 07:13AM    #
  5. When I am demonstrably more concerned here about the fate of women than you are, I think “misogynistic” is a laughable comment. Many, many women have answered these kinds of ads over the years, and found things much nastier than expected; and some of the women never come back at all, or are never found again—-maybe in a ditch, with the head on one side of the ditch and the rest of the body on the other side. These things really happen.
    “Figure modeling” is not necessarily slutty; there are different kinds of commercial models, not to mention nude figure drawing for art classes. I reserve the right to call “erotic photo shoots for pay” slutty, though, whether for women or men (no misogyny or misandry here); if nudie photos aren’t slutty,.....what is? In the broad sense, it is almost a form of prostitution. (And I am tempted to leave out the “almost”.)
    Peace, and I hope you find a safer profession immediately.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 2 '06 - 12:52PM    #
  6. David:

    “Laughable” is you lecturing a woman on the dangers of being a woman.

    I’m also skeptical of any effort to broadly label any activity “slutty” – particularly when the line between art and pornography is so thin. You may know it when you see it, but you haven’t seen it. You’ve only seen the ad.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 2 '06 - 02:06PM    #
  7. Ward Connerly, although black himself, betrays black interests (or many blacks think so); some women (not naming any) are willing to sell out and demean women in general. I don’t think Christie Hefner (daughter of Hugh) is doing women a great service by running Playboy Enterprises, but you are free to differ.
    ...It is true I have only seen the ad. However, I strongly suspect that the final product is not going to be “fine art”, or any kind of “art” at all, frankly. . . . .
       —David Boyle    Feb. 2 '06 - 02:49PM    #
  8. I strongly suspect that the final product is not going to be “fine art”, or any kind of “art” at all, frankly…

    And your definition of art became the community’s standard when?

    There’s a difference between criticizing a private advertiser and criticizing the press. There may be some instances of misdeeds coming from ads of that type, but it’s awfully lame to criticize anything based on such a weak connection.
       —Anonymous    Feb. 2 '06 - 03:28PM    #
  9. When did I call myself the community standard?
    One has a right to criticize nude-photo shooters, and also to criticize the Daily (or any other paper) for accepting ads from them. We have no right to criticize the press? What??? You heard of the 1st Amendment?
    The ad is bad in itself (would you be happy to find your mother, sister or daughter doing nude photo shoots for pay?), and ads of that nature can also lead to situations of danger or death.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 2 '06 - 03:32PM    #
  10. So Dave, if the erotic shoots were done for free, would they no longer be slutty? Just curious.
       —John Q.    Feb. 2 '06 - 05:59PM    #
  11. Ha ha!

    ...Could still be slutty, but maybe less PROSTITUTIONAL. Something like that. (Knowing Ma Sis or Daughter was in a nude photo shoot would be horrible, but maybe not as bad as if they did it for pay…)
       —David Boyle    Feb. 2 '06 - 09:17PM    #
  12. ‘slutty’? I had no idea AU was going to become the starting point for yet another ‘moral’ crusade against sex…
       —Marc R.    Feb. 3 '06 - 09:58AM    #
  13. Dave,

    Thanks for clarifying your hang-ups!
       —John Q.    Feb. 3 '06 - 10:33AM    #
  14. Not a moral crusade against sex, but a reminder that photo shoots can turn into sleazy, dangerous, even deadly situations.

    ...And: John Q., you would have no hang-up about your mother being paid for nude photo shoots?
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 01:27PM    #
  15. David, I think use of the word “slutty” is in and of itself misogynistic, if only because it works to define female behaviors on a scale of “slutty” vs. “not slutty” or, likewise, “bad” versus “good”. You may have only meant to criticize the ad in question by calling it “slutty”, but it seems to me you categorize female nude modeling as a “slutty” activity (i.e. a “dangerous” activity) in the process.

    I’m interested, also, in your argument in comment number 11: “Knowing Ma Sis or Daughter was in a nude photo shoot would be horrible, but maybe not as bad as if they did it for pay…”

    It seems that you make an assumption that nude modeling is a negative activity for women to engage in. You don’t mention whether it would be okay for a male family member (father, son, brother) to pose in a nude photo shoot. Am I then to assume that it would be okay for a man to engage in this activity? If so, then I think your argument is saying some questionable things about women, things that might be construed as misogynistic.

    Then again, I could be misreading your arguments. This is teh intarweb, after all, and sarcasm tends to slip between the cracks.

    I’m interested in knowing why my part-time modelling gigs are dangerous, though. If only because I like watching you dig.
       —Margaret    Feb. 3 '06 - 01:46PM    #
  16. Just to clarify: You say that if my mother modeled nude, it would be bad. Would it be bad if my father modeled nude? If not, there’s something sexist about your argument. If there’s something wrong with both my mother and my father modeling nude, then you’re just being puritanical.
       —Margaret    Feb. 3 '06 - 01:49PM    #
  17. Either female or male nude modeling is bad. (Except for figure modeling in art school or something; that’s not the same as pornography)
    If your gigs are harmless, good. But they are not harmful for everyone, as we can tell from reading crime reports.
    “Slutty” is not inherently misogynistic, since female or male can behave so. (Men are often worse than women, by the way)
    But the ad talked about women, so I mentioned women.
    Puritanism is a great American tradition, by the way; see Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, et al. ...
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 02:08PM    #
  18. As far as the Daily’s respect for women goes, I was actually more concerned about their uncritical coverage of Bill Maher than these nude modeling ads. (Not that I’m really “concerned” about either.)
       —ann arbor is overrated    Feb. 3 '06 - 02:11PM    #
  19. Billy did what now?
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 02:39PM    #
  20. Well, he said that Kobe Bryant’s accuser’s real name was “Looney McSlut,” and he’s done a lot of other things like that, but he still gets treated like a hero of the left.
       —ann arbor is overrated    Feb. 3 '06 - 02:48PM    #
  21. That’s horrible! More people should know about that.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 02:54PM    #
  22. I heard Thomas Jefferson kept slaves and had sex with them, but he still gets revered as a founding father of the United States. I’m not comparing Bill Maher to Jefferson, just noting that people can be completely vile in one regard yet still have respectful, noteworthy accomplishments.

    On the photography ads, I agree that concerns over the dangers of them do sound “moral” unless you have evidence (not derivative of anecdotes or assumptions) of crimes linked to the actual photographers. Otherwise it could be construed as “Focus on the [Arbor Update] Family” sounding…
       —FAA    Feb. 3 '06 - 03:23PM    #
  23. TJ should have behaved a lot better, of course. Sad he didn’t.
    Actually, I do have moral/aesthetic objections (again, as per “Would you want your parent doing nudie shoots for pay? Would that go over in the PTA?”), but safety too is a concern.
    See, e.g., http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050226/wfive_natel050224/20050226?hub=WFive , “Ontario woman Natel King made fast money in the adult entertainment industry, posing on the Internet and appearing in photos and videos. ...On March 23, 2004, her body was discovered in a ravine in Pennsylvania, murdered after a photo shoot—possibly the victim of a snuff video. ...”
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 03:43PM    #
  24. “Slutty” is not inherently misogynistic
    Well, actually by definition, is a term for a woman (there are other terms for men):

    American Heritage® Dictionary definition of slut:1a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous. b. A woman prostitute. 2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

    Oxford English Dictionary definition of slut:1. a. A woman of dirty, slovenly, or untidy habits or appearance; a foul slattern.

    But mostly David, it isn’t your business how people choose to make money legally. Just because someone is a woman doesn’t mean she is too dumb to make her own decisions on her personal welfare. I have known many people who modeled for extra money in college, some fully clothed, some as lingerie models, and some nude. I have also known people who have modeled nude for art classes. None of them were ever threatened or treated in any way that wasn’t entirely professional. It really isn’t that big a deal. Could it possibly be dangerous? Maybe, but not any more or less dangerous than any other job. Other than one two year-old article about a woman who was in the adult film industry, do you have any proof that modeling (naked or otherwise) is such a dangerous occupation?
       —Juliew    Feb. 3 '06 - 04:07PM    #
  25. OED has “Dirty, foul; slovenly” and “Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful”. But “especially of a woman” does not limit it to women.
    Some years back, I constantly read things calling Bill Clinton a “slut” for what he did to Monica Lewinsky. So reference to males is acceptable usage.

    It is very much my business to criticize how people make money legally. Halliburton may be technically operating within the law, but in a really sleazy manner worth constant crticism. Have you heard of the First Amendment?
    I differentiated art classes from pornography, see my multiple comments above.
    Of course modeling can be a dangerous occupation, if you are alone in a situation with people you have never met before. I do not have statistics; but since we hear rape is massively underreported, one can assume that many nasty things went on at photo shoots that may never be reported to the police. It’s only common sense. If only the murdered woman I mentioned had listened to this kind of advice.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 04:29PM    #
  26. David,

    Yes, it would have been better if she worked in a coal mine in W. Virginia. Oh wait, that’s dangerous too. Darn, maybe she should of just stayed home and baked cookies.

    I think you all are letting David off too easily. Read through his responses. In his world, any nude modeling done outside of the art school is pornography. At least he doesn’t discriminate between men and women posing nude, they are all “slutty” in not “prostitutional”. It sounds like someone has a serious hang-up with sexuality being expressed in any way. Guess you better keep the lights off Dave.

    PS – If my mother got paid for a nude photo shoot, more power to her. She’s a smart enough woman to be able to make decisions for herself. She doesn’t need the two-bit advice of some preening, prissy moralist to help her decide how to live her life. She definitely doesn’t need some man telling her how she should act as a woman.
       —John Q.    Feb. 3 '06 - 05:33PM    #
  27. I don’t see it as ‘letting [him] off too easily’ so much as expressing the proper amount of disdain and general disinterest in a pattern of behavior that should be beneath notice except that it’s occurring as a product of the activity of one of the sanctioned article posters on one of the better blogs in AA…
       —Marc R.    Feb. 3 '06 - 05:55PM    #
  28. David, how do you define pornography? On a warm day on campus it is quite possible to see more skin than at a semi-nude photo-shoot. To be clear, where exactly do you draw your line? No on photos of lace camisoles with cleavage, but yes on burka modeling? Or do you take the middle road – nothing below the collarbone or above the knee?

    Sorry about all the questions. I just want to figure out if you are likely to share the opinion of Bill Johnson and the ADA on Victoria’s Secret or if, as John Q suggests, the issue is much deeper for you… I’d suggest reading up on some Kinsey, but your friends (at least in opinion of what constitutes pornography) Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family didn’t have too many nice things to say about the man or the film about him.

    John Q, I’m still laughing about the lights off bit.
       —FAA    Feb. 3 '06 - 06:18PM    #
  29. David, why did you invoke the First Amendment in this discussion? No one here has suggested that you do not have the legal right to post your opinions. By bringing up the First Amendment, you suggest that sharply criticizing your opinions is equivilant to censoring them.

    First of all, your use of moral equivocation as a rhetorical strategy is unlikely to win over many of the readers of this blog. Personally, I find it offensive—both to my intellegence and to the true importance of the First Amendment.

    Please note that I’m not saying you shouldn’t be ALLOWED to invoke the First Amendment whenever the hell you want to. I’m just saying that your tendency to do so weakens whatever argument you are making, and lowers the level of discourse on this blog.

    (It’s also just plain funny for you self-righteously invoke the First Amendment as you preach the dangers of pornography.)
       —Pam    Feb. 3 '06 - 07:00PM    #
  30. 1. There is honor in working a coal mine, see, e.g., the recent movie “North Country” about sexual harassment of women in mines…surprise, the kind that can easily occur if you are in a photo shoot with people you don’t know. Harassment or worse, see the case of Natel King, above.
    There is little honor I know of at all in nude photos for hire. That kind of sexual behavior is why Clinton was impeached, couldn’t campaign effectively for Gore, and now we have thousands of U.S. corpses coming back from Iraq. Happy?
    ...By the way, “John Q.” is a misnomer; Clinton won in the first place, and W. Bush, by campaiging partly on moral grounds, e.g., putting warning stickers on obscene records, or whatever. Like it or not, John Q. Public is on my side, not yours, in condemning moral degradation rather than excusing it. See the U.S. election results.
    I have no sexual hang-ups, just good taste; if you polled real, average Americans door-to-door and asked “Hey, would your mom like to pose nude for money?”, you’d be lucky to escape a serious beating. Don’t do that poll, John Q, or someone might hang you up with a rope. Then you would have a severe hang-up.

    2. Thank goodness we have some blog in Ann Arbor where a poster can stand up for morality and condemn things openly. Racist cartoons in the Daily are worthy of condemnation. (See the condemnatory letter the Daily had the decency to print today, “Viewpoint: An open letter to the Daily”, by the Student Relations Advisory Committee, ”...It is in this capacity that we write to express our disappointment and strong objection to the publication by The Michigan Daily of two cartoons on its editorial page…”)
    Nudie photos for money are worthy of condemnation. As is my right to say. (Do you think those kinds of photos are noble, virginal, chaste behavior? Why am I obliged to lie about it? Better the truth, thank you.)
    If you tried going to one of the black group meetings on campus and saying, “I think Coretta Scott King should have made nude photos for money, cool, huh?”...well, “good luck with that”. She was classy, let’s remember. Let’s use some common sense.

    3. What moral equivocation? ...Also, I didn’t say pornography should be banned, I’m saying the participants can be harassed, raped, and murdered. Do you have a problem with my noting that, or do you object to people who are trying to reduce violence against women?
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 09:14PM    #
  31. ...Also, using a fake argument like “telling your mother how to behave as a woman”, when I already said that it would be bad for either Ma or Pa to rent out their body for money, is beneath contempt. If I can save someone’s mother from being raped or arrested as a prostitute, I’m a better “son” to that mother than her real son is. Sad to say.

    As for FAA: I don’t have a definite line for “what is porno”, but try coming nude to the next Regents’ meeting and having sexual activity with a partner (or solo), and hire someone to film it; if you did that, I think that would qualify as porno. ...So it does exist, even if we can’t always define it; aesthetics are tricky at times…
    “On a warm day on campus it is quite possible to see more skin than at a semi-nude photo-shoot.” I don’t think so. Or if so, depends on what part of the body the skin is on; some places are less risky of an obscenity charge than others…
    I have read some Kinsey, and I am not fond of James Dobson. I do think Victoria’s Secret is sort of trashy, though. There’s a reason people tend not to hold church services in a Victoria’s Secret.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 3 '06 - 09:23PM    #
  32. They’re coming for you Boyle. They’re all ganging up on you, just like in middle school. Time to go to your happy place. Rest a bit. Recharge your batteries. Maybe go a week or two without posting such CRACKED-OUT, NARCISISTIC BULLSHIT.
       —Parking Structure Dude!    Feb. 4 '06 - 12:23AM    #
  33. You forgot the double “s” in “narcissistic”. ...you cracked out mother lover bullshooter.
    Enjoy the parking structure dude!
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 12:36AM    #
  34. David:

    You don’t have a line for pornography? The line seems to be an ad in the daily requesting nude models. Otherwise, what’s the big deal?
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 4 '06 - 12:46AM    #
  35. There was a Girls Gone Wild bus parked at MJ’s Wooden Nickel yesterday (Friday) afternoon.

    Girls Gone Wild targets the college demographic, and would probably know to advertise in the Michigan Daily if they needed girls.

    Just tossing a possibility out there…
       —Adam de Angeli    Feb. 4 '06 - 01:55AM    #
  36. David,

    Sorry but I don’t think anyone who’s read your posts will agree with your claim that you don’t have any sexual hang-ups. You can’t talk about anything sexual without describing it as “dirty”, “slutty”, “trashy” or worse even when describing things that are quite tame. What’s up with that?

    Sex is generally a normal, healthy human behavior and most people, shocking as this may be, enjoy it. Equally shocking is that people, no matter what they tell pollsters, are curious, interested and aroused by displays that are openly or suggestively sexual (modern advertising anyone?) and they actually do look at it (and don’t go blind!) Unfortunately, it’s people with attitudes like your own, who rail against sex as a “nasty” and “sleazy”, who are responsible for too many people with repressed and screwed-up views of sex and sexuality. What follows are problems like teen pregnancies, sexual dysfunction, violence against homosexuals and women and worse. Dave – you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.
       —John Q.    Feb. 4 '06 - 02:02AM    #
  37. Until recently, I was under the impression that AU contributors made an effort to keep top-level posts relatively unbiased and objective, adding personal opinions via comments. I’m uncomfortable with the handful of recent posts in which David Boyle has totally disregarded this.
       —kelli    Feb. 4 '06 - 04:29AM    #
  38. You’re kind of a prude, Dave. And pretty hypocritical.

    It’s really shocking to see someone who’s supposedly so committed to social justice and progressive causes take such a backward, regressive approach to nude modeling.

    Lots of other posters have said this, but to criticize a company for soliciting attractive female models on the premise that nude modeling is inherently unsafe for women demeans the intelligence of women. The entire argument is based on the premise that women are too stupid to recognize danger; these ads will lead undiscriminating, unitelligent women to their deaths.

    It seems far more likely that a woman will recognize these potential hazards and weigh costs against benefits before going ahead with a photo shoot.

    No woman needs David Boyle, man, to englighten them about the dangers that women face on a daily basis. Nobody needs David Boyle sticking it to the powers-that-be, protecting innocent, unsuspecting women from behind-the-lens rapists. Women, especially if you accept the premise that women are equally gifted/capable as men, can do that for themselves.

    We live in a liberal, capitalist society. We have open markets. There is a demand for pornography. Thus, there are many people willing to supply.

    You criticise the Daily for being racist. You applaud some ridiculous University committee that radically interprets the Fourteenth Amendment as a speech code. You encourage Donn to find a female, minority successor in the interest of social justice.

    Yet you don’t think women are smart enough to read an advertisement and interpret the inherent dangers.

    Get over yourself.
       — Reader    Feb. 4 '06 - 01:39PM    #
  39. 1. An ad for nude modeling may not be per se pornographic, but may not be the top of good taste, either.

    2. “Girls Gone Wild”, hmm…

    3. “Sex is generally a normal, healthy human behavior and most people, shocking as this may be, enjoy it.” Good! What is shocking?
    Natel King being murdered during a photo shoot. It shocked me, at least.

    4. Those who are uncomfortable with my posting style, may start their own weblog. AU should not be a cookie-cutter experience, I hope. The more individuality, the better.
    ...As well, I have been looking at various front-page posts by various people, and they are not all entirely devoid of personal opinion. ...Nor should they be.

    5. One person’s “prude” is another person’s “fellow with good taste”; one person’s “free spirit” is another’s “crack-dealing prostitute”. I have always found “prude” a questionable term of abuse; I guess we’ll have to take away Mother Teresa’s Nobel Prize because she “was too prudish”, hm?
    Do you have a Nobel Prize yet? Maybe the “”prudes”” have a point.

    “We live in a liberal, capitalist society. We have open markets. There is a demand for pornography. Thus, there are many people willing to supply.” Oh I didn’t even notice. There are “markets” for crack, underage prostitutes, plutonium, heroin, AK-47’s, etc. Thank goodness we have the law and police to prevent some things being marketed.
    But you support a free market for all those things, do you? Who’s the “hypocrite” now? Not I.
    The free market is a golden calf and idol that gets far too much worship.

    “You applaud some ridiculous University committee…” How are they ridiculous? Because they respect African Americans?

    Finally, for my sin of reminding both men and women that certain things can be in bad taste and also dangerous; pardon me while I get a wet noodle to lash myself with.
    While you’re at it, perhaps you can tell those “dumb” Take Back the Night marchers that they are anti-woman, because they distribute information about rape etc. ...gee, that’s patronizing and demeaning to women, now, isn’t it? We certainly wouldn’t want SISTERHOOD, much less a FEMINIST MOVEMENT OF WOMEN WHO SUPPORT EACH OTHER, now. Better that they remain isolated, especially since having hundreds of them show up for the nude photos at once could collapse the floor of the nudie photo shooter, hmmm???
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 05:43PM    #
  40. Those who are uncomfortable with my posting style, may start their own weblog.

    Is this preacher Boyle implying this site is his personal weblog? That certainly is what Arbor Update has been resembling as of late.

    I thought this place was “a volunteer run news and discussion site for the Ann Arbor community”, not a pulpit for the supposed A2 area litmus tester of all things moral and tasteful: David “George W. Pussy Bushina Monologues” Boyle.
       —FAA    Feb. 4 '06 - 06:40PM    #
  41. See, I have a sense of humor.
    I would like to see other posters post as often as they like! More often, hopefully.
    I am no preacher.
    This as you know is not my personal weblog, but there is room for stylistic difference.
    Don’t drink that litmus test my moralistic friend! Tastes bad!!!
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 06:43PM    #
  42. “I have always found “prude” a questionable term of abuse; I guess we’ll have to take away Mother Teresa’s Nobel Prize because she “was too prudish”, hm?”

    Things I find questionable:

    1) Summarily labeling something “slutty” and “dangerous”

    2) Doing so without ever having seen what the hell you’re condemning.

    David, your sin here isn’t that you’re concerned for women. You focused in on an ad appearing in, once again, The Michigan Daily. Using little more than acedoctal “I’ve heard of women being raped while answering these ads” evidence and your own moral compass as a guide, you labeled the ad a “slutty and dangerous monstrosity.”

    The only thing dangerous here is the elevation of your own sense of right and wrong in place of actually having seen what goes on at these photo shoots. In past weeks, I’ve heard similar arguments made about Brokeback Mountain. That your comments are ostensibly motivated by a concern for a women and not homophobia should be of little comfort. “I think its wrong but I don’t know exactly why” is worse than a bad argument. Its a dangerous argument. More dangerous than any ad in the Daily.

    You may be willing to assume (and correct in doing so) that bad things can happen to women answering an ad. That doesn’t support you in your condemnation of this ad, nor does it support your condemnation of the Daily for running it. But then again, you rarely need a good reason for doing that, so by all means. (On a side note: Why is this ad more dangerous than another ad? One would think that a woman would be just as vulnerable answering an ad for, say, secretarial services.)
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 4 '06 - 06:58PM    #
  43. I do not recall calling that one ad per se “dangerous”; maybe the ad runners are saintly in some ways and give out cotton candy to little children with AIDS every day. But there are occasionally some nude photo shoot types of ads, that can lead people into dangerous situations.
    I tossed in mention of the ad because I happened to be mentioning the Daily again, so added the ad thing as an extra (and now it has become the main point of the discusssion!!!!).
    I hear Brokeback Mountain is a good film. But it’s just a film, not a venue where you take off your clothes to take photos for money. (Or are TOLD that’s what going to be happening, when what might really happen is that someone will rape you, strangle you to death with an electric cord, and dump your body in a river somewhere.)
    A secretarial services ad could be dangerous, too; but I suspect that a higher percentage of “nude photo” ads are dangerous. Call it instinct.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 07:11PM    #
  44. I am no preacher.

    In a word; bullshooter.

    Oxford American Dictionary contains all too appropriate definitions:
    preach—give moral advice to someone in an annoying or pompously self-righteous way
    preacher—one who preaches

    You don’t have a “stylistic difference”, Rev. Boyle, you have an overt desire to define taste and morals. So, step down from the pulpit and just post a news item without your usual preachy “defining”.
       —FAA    Feb. 4 '06 - 07:12PM    #
  45. Wait a couple days, I may do just that!!
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 07:14PM    #
  46. I do not recall calling that one ad per se “dangerous”

    Ahem:

    A slutty and dangerous monstrosity, certain ads are
       —FAA    Feb. 4 '06 - 07:17PM    #
  47. But I did not say which certain ads…
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 07:21PM    #
  48. David, just let this go.

    You’re infuriating people over something that shouldn’t even be an issue.

    Just admit you shouldn’t have even brought up that classified ad.

    You can leave the Daily bashing to me :)

    http://www.a2planet.com/blog/
       —Adam de Angeli    Feb. 4 '06 - 08:01PM    #
  49. But I did not say which certain ads…

    Are you kidding me? Let’s review:

    Re respect for women, let me also toss in an item from today’s Daily classifieds, “NEED MONEY FOR spring break? Attractive females wanted for nude and semi nude [sic] modeling. Great pay, flexible hours. 734-[ ]-[ ].” I wonder how many women have been drugged/raped/killed over the years after answering ads for nudie stuff. A slutty and dangerous monstrosity, certain ads are.

    If you expect anyone to believe that after you quote a certain ad and then state certain ads are slutty and dangerous that you are not referencing said ad with your certain clause, you are a hack writer at best and a crazy person at worst.

    Or, did David Boyle get a memo regarding the English language I somehow missed? A memo on how you can now quote or make a statement, follow it up with a descriptive statement in the same paragraph, yet you are actually describing something unrelated or never before mentioned?

    Let me give that a try:

    Every time David Boyle posts a preachy op-ed piece to the home page of Arbor Update he degrades the quality of the site. Fucking insane-moralistic-asshole bullshit-slingers, certain people are.

    (Yes, I know I’ve said in previous threads that I reserve harsh language for people I actually know. But according to Boyle, I did not say which certain people…)
       —FAA    Feb. 4 '06 - 10:05PM    #
  50. FAA is bloody hilarious.
       —Billie    Feb. 4 '06 - 10:31PM    #
  51. “Darn right Billie”.

    Certain FAA’s may not recognize facetious remarks, even if they themselves make them. Nor did I say s/he degrades the site every time h/er/is ucking insane-moralistic-grasshole bullshiitake-FAAtuous-slingery leaks onto this site. And that’s for certain.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 4 '06 - 11:12PM    #
  52. To answer the following:

    “You applaud some ridiculous University committee…” How are they ridiculous? Because they respect African Americans?

    No, the committee is ridiculous because it’s extremely bad legal reasoning makes the University look retarded. The committee, which is composed of University students and faculty, decided that black students’ Fourteenth Amendment guarantee to equal protection under the law (as well as various clauses of the 1964 Civil Rights Act) was somehow violated by the cartoons in question. The committee argued that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection should lead the Daily to pull cartoons such as the supposedly racist two in question.

    That University faculty members (but not a single Law professor, I wonder why) read the Fourteenth Amendment as a speech code is embarassing. The Fourteenth Amendment has NEVER been construed as a speech code. Their argument that the Daily should be abridging individuals’ explicit First Amendment rights in the name of a 14th Amendment “right” to be free from offensive speech would make Ruth Bader Ginsberg look like an originalist.

    There is no way that a cartoon infringes on an individual’s right to equal protection under the law. They are cartoons. CARTOONS. You would think a room full of Ph.Ds could figure that out.

    The basic point: Even if the cartoons were undisputably racist, there is no way to argue they violate any individual’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Yet, a committee of University faculty made that exact argument – IN PRINT.

    And that reflects badly on the entire community. Which is why I think the committee was ridiculous.
       —Reader    Feb. 5 '06 - 01:55AM    #
  53. What if everyone begins ignoring David Boyle when he writes posts that are obviously pleas for attention? Attempting to engage him in a reasonable conversation is probably unrealistic.
       —Mark    Feb. 5 '06 - 04:10AM    #
  54. About 5 posts back I asked David to just let this go.

    Correction:

    EVERYBODY, just let this go!!!
       —Adam de Angeli    Feb. 5 '06 - 05:46AM    #
  55. I think some guidelines for top-level articles would be helpful. With all due respect to Mr. Boyle, it seems like chatty editorializing (and/or outright ignorance, for that matter) has a better home right here in the seething morass of lust and deviltry that is the discussion thread.
       —Margaret    Feb. 5 '06 - 02:02PM    #
  56. Agreed from the beginning. But I hardly post anymore, so I have little right to complain.
       —Brandon    Feb. 6 '06 - 02:58AM    #
  57. Returning to the main purpose of this post: today’s Daily has several points of view on the Alex Moffett issue.
    One, by Daily writer (and former Daily editorial page editor, as I recall) Suhael Momin, is “Tuning Down the Rhetoric”,
    ”...Recently, several progressive organizations, including SSAA, kicked out three members who joined the secret society Michigamua. The underlying rationale was that Michigamua is racist, ...Yet the entire case for Michigander’s supposed racism relies on its contentious, pre-2000 history. [Editor!! “Michigamua”, not “Michigander”!!]
    ...Just yesterday, the former vice president of the campus NAACP chapter, Alex Moffett, sent an e-mail around campus in which she called for unity in the campus struggle against “racist practices” at The Michigan Daily. ...The first cartoon (The Bien Archives, 11/28/2006), however, needs no apology; Michelle Bien’s illustration fits squarely within the debate over affirmative action. [What??? !!]
    ...Moffett, BAMN, the SRAC and the groups mentioned earlier may believe they are acting in minority communities’ best interest. They’re not. ...”
    Lumping in Moffett with BAMN, whom she has criticized, is absurd; and so are the other things, pretty much. Is Momin really more in touch with the black community than Moffett is? Maybe not. He doesn’t seem to understand the Michigamua issue or the “racially insensitive cartoons” issue either. Oy.

    On a brighter note: the Daily also printed the letter “Daily’s portrayal of former VP of NAACP inaccurate” by Erika Purcell-Williams,
    ”...What really grabbed my attention, however, was how the Daily portrayed Moffett’s character (Amid Controversy, NAACP VP resigns, 01/30/2006), presumably without any type of contact with Moffett beforehand. The manner in which Moffett was portrayed, especially in regards to her affiliation with the NAACP, seemed unjustly biased; the Daily failed to highlight any of the positive actions Moffett took during her stint as vice president.

    Is it safe to say and assume that the author of the article had no previous knowledge of Moffett other than what was posted on a private website? Is it safe to say that assumptions were made based upon hearsay and a few events that took place? Why didn’t the Daily mention any positive facts about Moffett? I believe that the Daily clearly allowed an inaccurate portrayal of a campus political figure to be published in its pages, wrongfully tarnishing someone’s public image. If there has ever been any point where the Daily has lost its credibility and respectability as a newspaper, it is now.”

    Something to think about.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 6 '06 - 03:05PM    #
  58. David:

    I’m not sure we’re reading the same article here.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but your only real beef with Momin’s points on Michigamua is that there was a typo in the paper? “Michigander” and not “Michigamua?” I know copy editing the Michigan Daily (and posts on this webblog) is a favorite pasttime of yours, but how does the typo lead you to the conclusion that Momin doesn’t understand the Michigamua issue? Moreover, where, in Momin’s column, does he claim to be in touch with the black community?

    Reading Momin’s whole column, its pretty clear that he’s not lumping Moffett in with BAMN – at least not outside the specific behaviors that his column addresses. In his words, “I’m writing because I think those fighting for civil rights are pushing themselves off a cliff by picking bad battles and fighting them poorly.” That group may include both Moffett and BAMN, but it doesn’t mean that Momin is treating them interchangably with respect to all their activities.

    How exactly was Bien’s column outside of the debate on affirmative action? Was it overly simplistic? Perhaps. Was it outside of the debate? I don’t think so.

    BTW: Since when has it become inappropriate for an opinion page to push the boundaries of society’s sensitivities on a particular issue?

    I don’t know Moffett, but it appears from the article that the Daily did ok here. They attempted to interview the parties involved, but Moffett, the current campus NAACP president, and the state chapter refused to comment to the Daily. I can’t defend the decision to publish the article, but it appears that the Daily published a factually correct piece on a pressing campus issue. Nothing that was printed in the article was defamatory. The only possible insult – the use of the word “divisive” – doesn’t seem inappropriate when viewed in the context of her confrontations with BAMN and the state chapter.

    Moffett’s accusation that the article was meant at character assassination and that it is indicative of the racism that permeates the UM community is ignorant and absurd.

    Moffett and Purcell-Williams are wrong to cry foul at the use of a “private” website. Sorry – her website is no more private that this website, in that its not private at all. You want your thoughts to stay secret? Best not publish them in a public forum.

    So, seriously, what’s your (and Moffett’s) problem?
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 6 '06 - 07:57PM    #
  59. The typo “Michigander” is not criminal, but “Yet the entire case for Michigander’s supposed racism relies on its contentious, pre-2000 history”.....like Faulkner said, “The past isn’t dead, it’s not even past.” In 2006 Michigamua still has the NAME that offends people. Not to mention any other issues.

    “Moffett, BAMN, the SRAC and the groups mentioned earlier may believe they are acting in minority communities’ best interest. ”...I’m not saying he is claiming she uses BAMN-style tactics, but I still found it a little strange to lump her in with them! By the way, Momin may be making some claim there, that he knows minority communities’ interests better than Moffett does.

    ...I thought we had addressed the Bien cartoon long ago; I repeat that it had a redolence of D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” to me, even if that film was far worse than the cartoon.

    Opinion pages pushing sensibility is o.k., but cooler if in a progressive direction. If the Daily ran some “Let’s Re-legalize Slavery, It’ll Cut Down on Labor Costs” thing tomorrow, that would sure push sensibilities, but it wouldn’t be very nice, huh?

    The article may not have been defamatory, but, as Purcell-Williams noted, there may have been a lack of balance, e.g., not a whole lot said about positive achievements of Moffett, such as her organizing the Rosa Parks memorial vigil at which Mary Sue Coleman and others spoke.
    Also, “At a Michigan Student Assembly meeting a few days later, Moffett and other NAACP members clashed with some BAMN members, engaging in a shouting match over the rally. Police arrived to break the conflict up.”...that may actually BE defamatory: since I was in that room when the events above happened, and, unless my memory didn’t register, no police broke up anything. Unless they were wearing invisibility suits.

    I think “divisive” goes a little far; “controversial”, maybe, but “divisive” is a little much, I feel.

    The “private” website thing is true in that websites may be fair game; but perhaps she had a special sensitivity about the way she would wish people would use it, or something.

    By the way, I praise the Daily, and I say that without sarcasm, for running the Purcell-Williams letter today.

    It’s not just my “problem”, or Moffett’s
    “problem”; it’s Purcell-Williams’ “problem’ too, and others’, too, since I think various people agree with Moffett to some extent or other.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 6 '06 - 08:17PM    #
  60. David:

    The Michigamua name may well be important. But insofar as Momin’s piece is concerned, I think you’d agree that it clearly wasn’t intentional. With no intent, its a moot point.

    “By the way, Momin may be making some claim there, that he knows minority communities’ interests better than Moffett does.”

    He certainly didn’t write as much. And I think its unfair for you to attribute such an objectionable claim to him based on little more than a guess!

    “Opinion pages pushing sensibility is o.k., but cooler if in a progressive direction.”

    Ok. So the beef here is more of a personal political difference and not a problem with the paper?

    “The article may not have been defamatory, but, as Purcell-Williams noted, there may have been a lack of balance, e.g., not a whole lot said about positive achievements of Moffett, such as her organizing the Rosa Parks memorial vigil at which Mary Sue Coleman and others spoke.”

    Look – the article wasn’t intended to be a piece requiring any sort of balance. It was just a story on her resignation. The piece included some highlights of her tenure. That those highlights didn’t include your Top-5 picks? Too bad. That doesn’t mean it was unbalanced. Besides – Moffett declined to offer a comment for the piece.

    “If the Daily ran some “Let’s Re-legalize Slavery, It’ll Cut Down on Labor Costs” thing tomorrow, that would sure push sensibilities, but it wouldn’t be very nice, huh?”

    You do love these extreme examples to make your points. But you know that’s not what I’m saying, so…

    “I think “divisive” goes a little far; “controversial”, maybe, but “divisive” is a little much, I feel.”

    So that’s what this comes down to? That you thought “divisive” was “a little much?” Awesome, but not, so far as journalism goes, a problem with the Daily.

    “It’s not just my “problem”, or Moffett’s
    “problem”; it’s Purcell-Williams’ “problem’ too, and others’, too, since I think various people agree with Moffett to some extent or other.”

    Look, I don’t care how many people agree with you – particularly Purcell-Williams. Her comments in today’s Daily, like yours, are way off base.

    And like you, I suspect that her dislike of the article is supported by little more than assumption and implication.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 6 '06 - 10:12PM    #
  61. The “Michigander” was a small mistake, but the failure to realize that the name “Michigamua” itself offends Native Americans, is bad.

    Momin de facto may imply that he knows better than Moffett, what is better for African Americans. Strange claim to make.

    Any paper, Daily included, should be urged to push the envelope in a more progressive direction: MLK and Hitler both went to prison for “envelope-pushing” things they did, but guess which one I respect more. Hint: he won the Nobel Prize.

    A balanced piece beats an unbalanced one.

    If “divisive” was unfair or overboard, that was not good for the Daily to print.

    I think Purcell-Williams raises some good points or questions.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 6 '06 - 10:42PM    #
  62. David,

    You’re not some spoiled white kid from the suburbs living off a trust fund and spending your time being an “activist”, are you? Your comments about spending time at MSA meetings raises red flags.
       —John Q.    Feb. 7 '06 - 12:50AM    #
  63. Funny thing about the Pucell-Williams letter. I was talking with Sam Woll [I’m working on an article about the Michigamua] and we got to discussing the Daily and Sam mentioned how it is odd that the Daily runs so many letters that criticize it. She mentioned this letter and how the Daily didn’t contact Moffett for comments.

    Thanks to arborupdate.com I picked up on and mentioned that it was beyond weird, since the Daily actually DID contact her, or at least attempted to. According to Moffett on her blog cited by AU, she was harassed by the Daily and they called her phone incessantly. So I asked Sam something to the effect of, “Isn’t it weird that the Daily would run a letter that says something negative about their own paper, criticizing their lack of investigation when the letter made a presumptive, derogatory, and incorrect statement about their own standard of journalism? [not to pardon the Daily for harassing Moffett, but the fact is that they did attempt to get a comment from her.]

    Sam’s explanation was that the news and editorial departments of the Daily don’t communicate very well. That made sense.

    But reflecting on it later, it really doesn’t: all the editors had to do was go across the hallway and ask, “Hey, we’re about to run a letter criticizing you for not getting Moffett’s side of the story, is that OK?” At which point someone in the room might say, “No, believe me we tried. Tried a little too hard, actually…” and that would have been that.

    The conclusion is that the Daily doesn’t fact-check letters before running them, even when all that’s required is crossing a hallway. And while the opinions expressed in the letters are solely those of their writers, the Daily does choose what letters it will and will not run, and why they choose to run letters that aren’t factually correct—even when the letters are attacking their own publication—is inexplicably irresponsible.
       —Adam de Angeli    Feb. 7 '06 - 08:45AM    #
  64. Adam,

    What bubble world are you living in? Newspapers all over the country run letters that are factually inaccurate or flat-out wrong all the time. Sometimes these letters are about the newspaper itself. Sometimes newspapers will include an editorial comment indicating the error but more often than not, they get printed without comment. Unless a letter is libelous or defamatory, it’s not the job of any part of the newspaper to fact-check letters to the editor. As you noted, “the opinions expressed in the letters are solely those of their writer”. That’s the end of the story as far as I’m concerned.
       —John Q.    Feb. 7 '06 - 10:42AM    #
  65. Adam:

    That’s a lie Adam, and you are a liar.

    Lie # 1:

    ”...why they choose to run letters that aren’t factually correct—even when the letters are attacking their own publication—is inexplicably irresponsible.”

    There is nothing in the letter that is wrong as a factual matter. The letter clearly states that it is presumable, not a factual certainty, that the Daily did not contact Moffett. The letter writer was wrong in her presumption. But if the Daily barred all letters that presume something that is incorrect, almost every letter by you, Kate Stenvig, and every other campus wacko would be round-filed.

    Lie # 2:
    “The conclusion is that the Daily doesn’t fact-check letters before running them, even when all that’s required is crossing a hallway…”

    You’ve based a broad conclusion (that the Daily doesn’t fact check letters to the editor) on a single letter to the editor. Quite a presumption on your part, and also a lie. My proof, which is at least as credible as WRH, is my own experience at the Daily. It is standard practice to exclude letters which are, as John correctly pointed out, libelous or defamatory. That’s the extent of the fact checking, leaving letter writers (like yourself) free to use the pages of the Daily to pop off about racists, liars and the other goats of the bush league campus political world.

    Your lies notwithstanding, its always odd (but not surprising) to read about folks like you and David Boyle lecturing the Daily on journalistic standards. Say what you want about the Daily, but no editorial – now or ever – will turn to www.whatreallyhappened.com for its factual support. You may find that discouraging, but that’s only you taking one more step towards the deep end. Enjoy the drop.

    There are webbloggers who do a great job (AAIO, Goodspeed). But their credibility doesn’t rub off on you simply because you share their bandwidth. How’s the view like from the cheap seats, Adam? You getting a lot of hits on that weblog of yours? Or do the Israel-9/11 theories and knee-jerk use of words like “liar” scare off all but a handful of readers?

    Last, “liar” is not a rubbery catch all label for people who write and say things that you find objectionable. For more, check out www.adamdeangeliisaliar.com. Here, I discuss Adam de Angeli’s lies, as well as his not so well publicized partnership with Sacco and Vanzetti to steal the Lindberg baby.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 7 '06 - 01:11PM    #
  66. As Rodney King once opined: “Can’t we all just get along?”

    P.S. I thought it was Mary Sue what planned the Lindbergh baby thing, but you learn something new every day, I guess.
       —David Boyle    Feb. 7 '06 - 01:37PM    #
  67. Nope. It was Adam.

    Then again, I am a liar.
       —Daniel Adams    Feb. 7 '06 - 02:31PM    #
  68. Interesting that the Daily has had absolutely no mention of the death of Betty Friedan. I’m not a big fan of reprints from the wire services in college papers, but there’s clearly a precedent for printing something on a death that significant (Coretta Scott King, e.g.)
       —ann arbor is overrated    Feb. 8 '06 - 12:13PM    #
  69. JQ: “Newspapers all over the country run letters that are factually inaccurate or flat-out wrong all the time.”

    Still, it seems like something to be avoided when possible, doesn’t it? Especially when those incorrect statements are made against the newspaper itself?

    DA: OK, I take back having ever called you a liar. You said that whatreallyhappened.com “The author also peddles Bin Laden’s opinion” and that is not necessarily a lie—but sorely mistaken. For that I apologize. You are not a liar, but you were sorely mistaken.

    But this is some great logic you have here, Daniel: First you call me a liar for saying that the Daily doesn’t check the facts of letters and in the same breath you admit that the Daily doesn’t check the facts of eligible letters such as the one in Moffett’s letter.

    At any rate, I’m out. This is retarded. You and Peter are cut. No more responses.
       —Adam de Angeli    Feb. 8 '06 - 01:32PM    #
  70. Doesnt all this preoccupation with someone elses comments discourage a healthy mindset? David Boyle has probably used up an unncessary amount of energy digging one hell of a hole, just imagine what else he could have accomplished without this blog. Is David planning on attending college soon? He has got some good points, for a young man, but further refinement is required for him to make a healthy impact on….wait what was his issue? no ads for modeling or something? Regardless, you seem more concerned about arguing rather than coming to some middle ground. I guess your hands are washed though, right? You can do no wrong in your view, so you continue to be blinded by your retarted ego maintenance. These are issues you should investigate before spreading your disease to the rest of society. You are a very small problem, no more than a bother, a feeling that you need to have your kid murdered violently or dosed with some heavy LSD to realize how unhelpful you are. What a fuck head…


       —Gandhi    Oct. 20 '07 - 04:52PM    #
  71. “retarted ego”...apple tart, maybe? Or are you going to tell me, “Get a brain, moran” next?? “...a feeling that you need to have your kid murdered violently or dosed with some heavy LSD to realize how unhelpful you are. What a f[]ck head…” Is this “Parking Structure Dud” again? Oooh, you kidder!

    (Or is it THE Gandhi, the one from India? Welly well well!)
       —David Boyle    Oct. 21 '07 - 10:53PM    #
  72. I feel like I was just woken up by a mosquito in my bedroom.

    Wasn’t he banned?

    Shoo, Boyle. Shoo.


       —Parking Structure Dude!    Oct. 22 '07 - 12:56PM    #
  73. I don’t know why “Gandhi” posted in this old thread, but I had a right to respond.

    By the way, some pervert like you, busy with getting ready to molest teenage girls , is not exactly a moral voice to take seriously. Shoo yourself, before you get picked up by the vice squad, you anonymous psychopath.
       —David Boyle    Oct. 22 '07 - 06:50PM    #