An Impression UNC Law Could Do Without
I've never had much respect for UNC Law professor Eric L. Muller and now that he has attempted what I assert is visual libel--falsely attributing a photo of one person as being someone else--I have even less.
Muller has a long-standing and quite unhealthy fascination with conservative blogger and columnist Michelle Malkin, and this morning, Muller leveled a charge of hypocrisy against her in this post:
In today's column, Michelle Malkin asks, "Where Have All the Good Girls Gone?"
It's a verbal assault on some twenty-year-old TV personality in Great Britain who "once possessed an uncommon sense of modesty and decorum in the skin-baring age of Britney Spears," and liked to spend her time singing "Blessed Jesus" and clutching "a rosary blessed by the pope," but has now become "the new face of skankdom," a "half-naked" "pop tart" who sums up all that is evil in our new world of "sexpot dolls/characters" and "Bratz babies in thongs." A woman who has gone from "pure-hearted to pure crap," and who, among other horrible things, "drinks" and "parties."
With no further ado, I give you: Michelle Malkin, Spring Break, March 27, 1992. Could that be an all-you-can-drink wristband?
Here, incidentally, is the flickr page where the photo appears. Somebody forwarded it to me a couple of months ago. I chortled. Then I forgot about it -- until today, that is, when her vicious hatchet job on a "half-naked" twenty-year-old "skank" brought it to mind.
Mind you: there's nothing wrong with trips to the beach during college, or all-you-can-drink wristbands, or bikinis.
Just with hypocrisy.
The column stands or falls on its own merits, but Muller's accusation--a link to a trashy, "Girls Gone Wild" themed picture--is serious stuff. Muller says the photo is Malkin.
It isn't.
It is a horribly done Photoshop edit, featuring a shrunken headshot of Malkin poorly imposed in the wrong scale over someone else's body. It is such an obvious fakery one has to assume Muller knew it was faked, but pressed on with what in my mind constitutes something akin to visual libel, presenting a obvious forgery as legitimate.
Gawker Media, which owns Wonkette, is familiar with blogs and so much know just how easy it is to badly fake a Photoshop, and so it was a surprise when, they, too joined Muller in presenting the fake photo as fact.
Malkin is rightfully outraged at the attack, and she should be.
Eric Muller's unhinged obsession has gone far over the line, and I hope that he is called to account for his actions. Malkin does not deserve this, nor does North Carolina's flagship university.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:08 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The funny thing is, even if it were a genuine photo, it's no big deal. It's just a young woman in a bikini - nothing more, nothing less. There's really nothing immoral or racy about it.
Unless you have a thing for burkas.
Posted by: MikeM at September 29, 2006 11:14 AM (56lYi)
2
I sent an email to the dean of UNC warning him that excessive obsesseion often (almost always) leads to crime and Muller is over the line with Michele.
Everyone should warn UNC of the danger they face themselves by continued support of this guy.
Posted by: Scrapiron at September 29, 2006 11:46 AM (fEnUg)
3
He needs to be fired and living under a bridge in a cardboard box.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 29, 2006 05:59 PM (8uJYe)
4
I'm sure the "dean of UNC" appreciates your input. On what specific grounds, though, would you recommend the "dean of UNC" dismiss Muller? I'd be fascinated to know.
Posted by: d at September 29, 2006 06:39 PM (4K53w)
5
Dereliction of duty? According to this
UNC-Chapel Hill web site, their definition of Academic Freedom (the first entry in the Table of Contents, so it must be important, right?) is:
Academic freedom is the right of a faculty member to be responsibly engaged in efforts to discover, speak and teach the truth.
It seems to me that Eric Muller was neither 'responsibly engaged' nor 'speaking the truth'.
Perhaps Libel would be the better reason for dismissal.
Prophet Joe
.
Posted by: Prophet Joe at October 02, 2006 09:38 AM (CwVm0)
6
Since Malkin is in every sense a public figure, a libel case would be a nonstarter. In any event, the fact that Muller was (quite evidently) wrong about this photo hardly rises to the level of "dereliction of duty," unless you assume that academics hold each other to standards of papal infallibility and never make honest (or even stupid, partisan) mistakes.
Without changing the subject too much, I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that while you're willing to see UNC roast Eric Muller over open coals, you're completely comfortable with the fact that your president and vice-president (and their innumerable hirelings) have spent the past five years speaking volumes of untruth, deliberate or otherwise. What should be done with them and their "derelictions?"
Posted by: d at October 02, 2006 05:40 PM (4K53w)
7
Ah, d, thanks for making it easy then. Because I agreed with your point that dismissal must flow from specific, provable charges, I thought I was going to be entering a challenging and interesting conversation about what responsibilities academics have versus what has become normative. But you couldn't keep the stupid "Bush lied" trope from leaking out and it's clear you're not able to have such discussions.
There are many accusations of lying, but nailing them down has been rather elusive for the Bush opponents. I find that the accusations often boil down to "He says things (the GWOT, the economy, the environment) are going well but smart people know they're not so he's lying."
Try again on another thread, and remember you are among people who will ask you to make a specific and coherent case - just as you did in asking about the dismissal.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at October 04, 2006 07:28 PM (1w197)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The End of the World As We Know It...
Mary Katherine Ham
admits to watching
The View.
She was going to be on the panel after mine at Carolina FreedomNet 2006, but now... I dunno.
It might be time to talk about finding a replacement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
03:45 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
1
MKH contends that you were watching, as well as IMing her during the broadcast. Time to invoke plausible denialibility?
Posted by: MCPO Airdale at September 12, 2006 08:39 PM (3nKvy)
2
Not set to TIVO is it CY?
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 13, 2006 04:47 AM (JSetw)
Posted by: seawitch at September 13, 2006 09:27 AM (VSJlt)
4
Why would anyone who can read, write and particularly run a web page watch anything like the View? For that matter why doew anyone care for one minute what Rosie thinks on anything. Elvis was once asked about the Vietnam was an responded "I don't know man, I am just an entertainer". That was the smartest thing any person who is called a celebrity ever said. I also saw that Gerge Cloney is to speack at the UN, this world is nuts.
As to the torture. Torture is not being used on American citizens, so big deal. In fact we have rules governing its use with nation states and we are not at war with specfic nations, only terrorist and non-uniformed people. So big deal. I had a cousin who was at the Air Force Academy, he said that during the summer they would torture the cadets. The rule was that any went except drawing blood. The average time from start to confession was 24 hours. The Academy acknowledged that with simple methods they used everyone would break. So let them use the techniques. If the libs don't like it, they can succeed (if only the South could).
Posted by: David Caskey at September 13, 2006 11:05 AM (6wTpy)
5
.."he said that during the summer they would torture the cadets"
And you believed him? Dumbness probably runs in the family.
The Crusades - Christians attempt to retake Jerusalenm, led to the death of thousands.
The Inquisition - Christians killing people who do not agree with their version of religion.
Northen Ireland Conflict - Protestant(Christians) fighting against Catholics (Christians) under the guise of nationalism.
There are radical fundamentalist in all major religions who willing kill in the name of their god.
Posted by: SoWhat at September 13, 2006 02:26 PM (D6PTH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Operators are Standing By...
The Carolina FreedomNet 2006 half-day blog conference is just a month from now, and if you plan on coming, I suggest you hop over to Carolina Journal Online and check out the details. I hear that the hotel rooms at the reserved rate won't last too much longer, so you might want to act quickly.
The schedule is as follows:
8:00 a.m.-8:30 a.m.: Registration and Continental breakfast
8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m.: Welcome session
8:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m.: Local vs. Global: What Should Be Your Blog's Focus? Panelists are Raleigh's Lorie Byrd of Wizbang, Greensboro's Sam Hieb of Sam's Notes, Charlotte's Sister Toldjah and Raleigh's Bob Owens of Confederate Yankee.
10:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m.: Break
10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Panel: How Has The Blogging Phenomenon Affected Politics and Political Discourse? Panelists are Townhall.com's Mary Katharine Ham (formerly of Durham), Jeff Taylor of Charlotte's The Meck Deck, Scott Elliott of Election Projection and Durham's Josh Manchester of The Adventures of Chester.
12:15 p.m.-12:30 p.m.: Break
12:30 p.m.-2:00 p.m.: Luncheon and keynote speech, "The 61st Minute: Inside the Eye of Hurricane Dan" with Scott Johnson of Powerline
I hope to see you there.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:05 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Just heard about the conference. As it happens, I'm a Carolina blogger, but my 'thang' is a bit specialized.
I have a blog at http://wesupportlee.blogspot.com/ whose ultimate goal is to garner public support for the building of a new nuclear power facility in Cherokee County SC.
I'd like to get folks to actively support the utility's future multi-billion dollar investment in building of the facility so as to counter the anti-nuclear movement that screwed up California's energy picture, and is trying to mess up energy in New York State. (I grew up in California, you see...).
It's going to be a year or more before the utility gets its construction/licensing application into the NRC, so there's not a whole lot going on right now, other than general discussion of nuclear energy as an alternative to coal and natural gas, and as a much more efficient, productive alternative to wind and solar.
Right now, I'm blogging on stories that are distributed pretty much nationwide and internationally (Europe mostly). I keep the focus to the sci/tech/energy stuff and try to keep away from overt political stuff, except when politicians give positions on the topic of the blog.
Around the time in late '07 or '08 that comes up for the public meetings and the like regarding licensing and construction of the facility, I would like to help get community support for building it.
It's true that most folks who support nuclear energy are conservative in politics.
Politically speaking, I'm pretty moderate. I'm conservative on education, immigration, and some of the family type issues, but I'm more liberal on issues like a living wage for working folks (been there, done that, got the t-shirt).
I don't know if it would be worthwhile to attend the bloggers' conference in October (it's a 3 hour drive each way for me), but I'd consider attending if folks are interested in things that will be upcoming regarding energy policy around '07 and '08.
Best wishes!
Posted by: Ruth Sponsler at September 10, 2006 05:21 AM (cmj7Z)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
29kb generated in CPU 0.0171, elapsed 0.1122 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.1012 seconds, 156 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.