[Vision2020] Facts

[Darrell Keim]

Heh-You are correct, Saundra.  I was over simplifying to make a point.
Which you turned around and did the same to me.  Good for you!  I do enjoy a
good volley.

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>wrote:

> In part, Paul wrote:****
>
> “There is so much we don't know here.  I'd personally rather wait until we
> have some inclination of who knew what when before we light the torches and
> grab the pitchforks.”****
>
> ** **
>
> I think I agree with you, Paul, and with the rest of your post, too.  BTW,
> MPD is no longer – it’s Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).  And, I’m
> certainly not an expert, but we don’t know that he even had DID/MPD or
> schizophrenia (which some anonymous students are claiming he told them).**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> The rub, of course, is that since Ms. Benoit was murdered & Bustamante
> suicide, the remaining keepers of the answers to legitimate questions
> inarguably have a vested interest in disclosing information that makes them
> look good.  Indeed, I think we’ve already seen an alarming amount of that
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Darrell, I kind of agree & kind of disagree with you.  First, just because
> someone may legitimately have DID (and there’s only anecdotal reports of
> that with Bustamante), that *absolutely* *does not* automatically make
> them incompetent as you seem to want to imply – shame on you.  Do you hold
> that opinion of all with mental illnesses or just some?  I suspect that’s
> not what you really intended to imply, but since you want to apparently
> over-simplify the thoughts of others, I’m going to hold your feet to the
> fire with respect to what you actually write.  Fair enough?****
>
> ** **
>
> It seems to me the UI perhaps has already conveniently (whether that
> information was accurate or not is a different issue) – and for its own
> benefit – violated privacy law with respect to Bustamante’s employment yet
> wants to hide behind the law with respect to other information it & only it
> holds.  Why? ****
>
> ** **
>
> I *do* support privacy laws, generally speaking.  However, they are
> imperfect.  And I do think that the situation would be different had
> Bustamante not killed himself and thus precluded a criminal trial where
> crucial information may have been brought to life.****
>
> ** **
>
> Certainly if he was still alive, I perhaps would be arguing different
> points.  But, he’s not . . . and *nothing* released is going to prevent
> him from getting another job, or blackball him professionally or personally.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> What purpose, then, does “privacy” play when the victim filed a complaint
> against the suspect & both are now dead due to the violent actions of the
> suspect?****
>
> ** **
>
> Frankly, I don’t think privacy laws were written to address this kind of
> situation . . . but feel free to show me otherwise.****
>
> ** **
>
> Sometimes, true justice just might demand that laws be broken, and this, it
> seems to me, might be one of those times.  I’m curious to see what direction
> UI gets from the court.****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Saundra****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 10:51 AM
> *To:* Darrell Keim; Saundra Lund
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts****
>
> ** **
>
> Nor is having MPD actually a crime in the first place, when you get down to
> it.****
>
> ** **
>
> There is so much we don't know here.  I'd personally rather wait until we
> have some inclination of who knew what when before we light the torches and
> grab the pitchforks.****
>
> ** **
>
> Paul****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Darrell Keim <keim153 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> *Cc:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 9:49 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts
>
>
> ****
>
> Privacy laws can be inconvenient.  They are a double-edged sword.  But I
> know of no better in protecting certain citizen rights.  I'd rather live
> WITH the inconvenience then WITHOUT the privacy laws.****
>
>  ****
>
> Yes a solid argument can be made about giving up privacy rights when
> announcing MPD to a class.  An equally strong argument could be made that
> someone with such issues is not in control enough to be able to knowingly
> give up their rights.****
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:****
>
> I seems to me a solid argument can be made that Bustamante waived any
> privacy rights surrounding his employment when he announced his “multiple
> personalities” to students in UI classes.****
>
>  ****
>
> And, of course, there’s the giant white elephant in the room:  it’s
> obviously quite convenient for the UI to fall back on privacy laws when the
> employee isn’t ALIVE to give consent and the VICTIM -- a UI student who was
> “introduced” to her murderer in the course of her on-campus education here
> --  isn’t alive to tell her side of the story.  Quite convenient indeed.**
> **
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Saundra Lund****
>
> Moscow, ID****
>
>  ****
>
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
> nothing.****
>
> ~ Edmund Burke****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:
> vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Ron Force
> *Sent:* Friday, August 26, 2011 7:54 AM
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Facts****
>
>  ****
>
> Why aren't they (the UI) talking?****
>
>  ****
>
> Idaho Code § 9-340C
>
> (1) Except as provided in this subsection, all personnel records of a
> current or former public official other than the public official's public
> service or employment history, classification, pay grade and step,
> longevity, gross salary and salary history, status, workplace and employing
> agency. All other personnel information relating to a public employee or
> applicant including, but not limited to, information regarding sex, race,
> marital status, birth date, home address and telephone number, applications,
> testing and scoring materials, grievances, correspondence and performance
> evaluations, shall not be disclosed to the public without the employee's or
> applicant's written consent.
>
> ****
>
> Ron Force
> Moscow Idaho USA****
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Rosemary Huskey <donaldrose at cpcinternet.com>
> *To:* 'Paul Rumelhart' <godshatter at yahoo.com>; vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:11 PM
> *Subject:* [Vision2020] Facts****
>
> There are facts available via media and personal accounts about Ernesto
> Bustamante that are indisputable: he was a four year employee of the
> University;  he held a position of power over students; and he killed one of
> them.  These are the ingredients of a tragedy: a violent perpetrator, an
> innocent victim, and a gaggle of feckless enablers.  ****
>
>  ****
>
> I don’t really care what (if any) disease factor or personality disorder
> led to Dr. Bustamante’s crime.  There is no excuse, no justification that
> absolves him of clearly calculated, cold-blooded murder, and let’s not
> pretend there is.  Concurrently, his aberrant behavior was noticed and
> reported by students, his serial disregard of a non-fraternization policy
> between faculty and students, while not forbidden, should certainly have
> called his judgment into question. Surely over the  past four years his
> general demeanor was observed by professionally trained colleagues who, one
> can reasonably assume, are able to recognize deviant behavior occuring in
> front of their PhD eyes.  Why in the name of heaven was Bustamante retained
> on faculty for several years prior to Miss Benoit’s complaint?  Something is
> broken in this picture – not the least of which are the hearts of Miss
> Benoit’s parents, family, and friends. ****
>
>  ****
>
> Despite the terrible pain and loss the Benoit’s are experiencing,
> University of Idaho administrators have fled to the unholy sanctuary of
> privacy rights for a dead murderer, and by the way, conveniently sheltering
> themselves and the institution from any culpability.  I don’t believe I am
> alone, in pointing out that their graceless behavior shelters them from
> providing explanations on how this event came to be, and what they did or
> didn’t do that contributed to it.  At the very least we know that grievous
>  mistakes were made and sorrowfully, they can not be repaired.****
>
>  ****
>
> What a pity, and in my opinion a crime, that in a university of all places,
> a free and open appeal to truthfulness is trumped by laws which were never
> intended to obscure it.  Integrity has fled the scene, in favor of self-
> protection and a deeply flawed sense of loyalty to an institution which
> appears to be rotting from the inside.****
>
>  ****
>
> Rose Huskey****
>
>  ****
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================****
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================****
>
> ** **
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110828/aaff49f0/attachment-0001.html