March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« Lisa pic: East Market | Main | My column is not online »

Jun 04, 2006


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I can't imagine why the N&R decided to have Davenport write this column. He is well-known for his research skills (nudge-nudge) and his inability to look at anything with an analytical eye. I have written them more than once and asked them to find a conservative voice that would challenge us to think rather than make us laugh (or in this case gag). Surely there is an educated columnist available in Greensboro to take his place. Guarino, where are you?

davenport jr

I don't usually waste a lot of time responding to pompous, self-righteous liberals--or even "thoughtful moderates," for that matter. But the vehemence, arrogance, and factual inaccuracies of these posts demand that I set the record straight.

I stand by the research that I did for the GTRC column, but really, how much research is necessary? The report says exactly what I predicted it would say, two years ago. (Check the archives on my Web site,

Mr. Cone rightly points out that I was not at the ceremony at Bennett. I proudly boycotted the festivities. However, I have taken part in a couple of hearings. In fact, I was a panelist at one such hearing at UNC-G. Contrary to Mr. Cone's assertion, at least a few self-proclaimed Communists were in attendance. (Professor Spoma J. will verify these facts.)

The unveiling of the report at Bennett was not, as Cone claims, a "nudge, nudge," racist remark. I was merely pointing out the obvious truth that the GTRC is making race a central factor, when it should not be. By emphasizing race, the commissioners are gambling that blacks, a presumably monolithic group, will be goaded into supporting the GTRC's radical left-wing interpretation of the events of Nov. 3, and the commission's Marxist recommendations.

Mr. Cone, an "ostensibly serious" (and indisputably arrogant) columnist, did not do his research on this one. Perhaps his intellect is so keen, he doesn't need to bother with checking his info. I'm accustomed to childish name-calling from the Left, but I would expect someone of Mr. Cone's lofty status to at least get his facts straight.

Ed Cone

"Really, how much research is necessary?"


What facts were incorrect in my post? You didn't write about the report,just the ceremony that you didn't attend and the summary; you did point out that Bennett was a black college; you did not take part in the TRC hearings; and you wrote exactly what you thought two years ago.

Tony Ledford

I don't know which of these two statements made by Davenport above is more hilarious,

1. essentially equating thought with arrogance or
2. implying that there is any organization that is "radical left-wing" in or about Greensboro.

Thanks for the chuckles, Chuck!

Best regards,

chip atkinson

Ed- for pete's sake- what do you have against Davenport? Why not make a point without the sneers.


"I don't usually waste a lot of time responding to pompous, self-righteous liberals"

Yeah -- why can't Davenport make a point without the sneers?

Ed Cone

I'm pretty hard on the N&R, too. Let's not leave them out, they are by some measures the greater offender in this case.

But yeah, I'm pissed at Davenport Jr. He wasted an opportunity to provide a thoughtful disagreement. He did little work where others did much. He made judgments about events he did not attend and people he never met. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one, but opinion columns on a serious subject in a real newspaper should involve a little more than that.

sean coon

well said, ed.

Cara Michele

Ummm... FYI, y'all: Davenport just wrote what a whole lot of people are saying. And actually, he says it a lot more politely than some of them. The News & Record keeps running his column, so obviously somebody (or a lot of somebodies) like him and agree with him. Out here in the real world, not everyone is a "progressive." ;)

In all seriousness, if we really believe in hearing all voices, and we admit the truth that Davenport's voice is representative of more than just himself, then doesn't that call us to respect his right to write from that perspective?

Ed Cone

Michele, no doubt you are correct that many people view things the same way.

But shouldn't the standards of an opinion column about facts and current events in the N&R be higher than "lots of people say that?"

We all have opinions, see the comment above, re "assholes, widespread ownership of." Does he have a "right" to say what he says? Of course. Last time I checked, though, there is no right to publish on the front page of a regional daily.

In this case, Davenport Jr. (incorrectly) describes an event he didn't attend. Is that the acceptable standard for the News & Record?

Is it acceptable to you?

He uses his incorrect information to make an irrelevant smear of "godless communists," although at least two of the people involved are clergymen. Hey, a lot of people don't know the facts here, right? Etc.

It's not about everyone thinking alike. He blew the chance to make an intelligent argument against the project.

A fan of the project told me he wished there had been an unabashedly "pro" point of view on the page -- I told him that was not the way it should go. You don't tell the writers WHAT to think, but you do expect them to think, not to deliver a knee-jerk "I knew it all along how much research do you need" screed."

If I had read a superb report, I'd have written about that. If I'd have seen the report and the process Davenport described, I'd have written that. The point is that he was asked to write about the process and the report, and he didn't.

The comments to this entry are closed.