My Name Is Karen Owen

Groan.  If Tom Wolfe and the Duke lacrosse "rape" debacle did not quench for appetite for news about lacrossitutes, well, Karen Owen of Duke is your gal:

Karen Owen, a 2010 graduate, kept detailed notes on her sexual adventures with 13 members of Duke’s lacrosse, baseball and tennis teams over the last four years.  She then put those notes, along with the athletes’ names and photos into a PowerPoint presentation, that concludes with a ranking of the 13 on what she calls her “F*** list.” (Congratulations, I suppose, to this guy for topping the list.)

According to Jezebel, Owen sent the “unofficial senior thesis” titled “An education beyond the classroom: excelling in the realm of horizontal academics” to three friends and did not intend for it to go further than that. But one of those friends forwarded it on and it went viral, going out on listservs and eventually winding up on Gawker sites, Jezebel (for women) and Deadspin (for sports addicts).

I am trying to convince myself that this is a spoof, without success.  (Full disclosure - one of the young men on the list is a hometown hero so my kids are atwitter, as it were.)

And an interesting note for techies:

What about the male athletes whose names, photos, and tales of sexual prowess (or lack thereof) are now tabloid fodder? I suspect there are going to be invasion of privacy lawsuits in the near future; I imagine their lawyers are already working hard to get Gawker to take the PowerPoints down.

The good news for them is that Google doesn’t appear to be picking up their names from the PowerPoint because the slides are uploaded as photo files. Their Google results are safe for now. Their offline reputations — especially those at the bottom of the rankings — are not.

What kind of lame Google technology are we being offered?

 

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Today's breaking story: girls at Duke are having sex and gossiping about it.

[Walter]

I want the copyright violation suit against Gawker. $75,000 per download.

[MayBee]

If this was a guy writing about his female partners, there would be outrage.

[bgates]

From the cache of Ms Owen's LinkedIn (har har) profile, since deleted:

As a result of my experiences abroad, I would like to pursue a career in international health....
For experience:
Worked in the local community spreading HIV/AIDS information so as to challenge the stigma, discrimination and isolation attached to the disease
...
researched correlations between feather color and aggressive behavior in female tree swallows using a spectrometer
Determined indicators of male quality in tree swallows through analysis of song patterns
and, inevitably,
Sports Information Assistant
Duke Dept. of Athletics
Recorded, organized, and evaluated individual and team statistical records for numerous athletic events

So there you have it: her interests include aggressive behavior in females, determining male quality, recording statistics on athletes, and helping people with sexually transmitted diseases feel like they're not alone. Plus something about swallows.

There's obviously no way anybody could have seen this coming.

Unless her roommate had been this guy.

[Clarice]

I'm with MayBee. And seeing the sexism at Duke in the Lacrosse case, I expect the campus will not be marching outside her dorm demanding her expulsion. PHEH

[Walter]

It is down from Gawker prime, but the link in Tom's post to cache-02.gawkerassets.com still works. Via that link the rest of the presentation is available by varying the numbers at the end. An Hungarian firm has registered that domain.

So, disregarding the human pathos for now, is Gawker still liable for each and every download from that site? Where is the RIAA when we need them?

[MayBee]

Oh, bgates. xoxoxo

[PD]

sent the “unofficial senior thesis ... to three friends and did not intend for it to go further than that

In other words, she's a brain donor.

[Danube of Thought]

Jesus wept.

[Army of Davids]

Rafael Correa....Ecuador.....A Hugo Chavez clone w/ nicer clothes.

Univ. of Illinois Doctorate in economics.

Nice.

He does have the US government's full support.

[PD Shaw]

When I have sex with someone, do I have to get a signed waiver to think about it afterwards? To write about it in my diary? Brag about it to my freinds? Write about it in my personal memoirs?

[Pagar]

"He does have the US government's full support."

He's a leftist. Of course, he would have the US government's full support. I expect everyone knows by now, the further left one is, the more the US government supports that person.

[Tollhouse]

Disappointing, she doesn't appear to have used APA or MLA formatting. So poorly educated.

[Donald]

Whatever happened to Daily Kos?

[Danube of Thought]

I just thank God none of this technology was around during the twenty or thirty years I spent in a constant, frenzied state of rut.

[MarkO]

Angry women at Duke? No way.

[Melinda Romanoff]

DoT-

Ah-men to that.

[Army of Davids]

Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.
Ludwig von Mises

Think taxpayer subsidies to a few big health insurers implicit in ObmaCare.

[Army of Davids]

Rizzo

Pension Spiking.

Thank you California. Thank you SEIU.

Cockroach theory....for every roach you see there are dozens more.

[centralcal]

Whoa boy, and completely off topic, looks like Rick Sanchez of CNN may be joining David Schuster in purgatory.

"I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart, and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah."

Actually, the whole interview is "interesting." However, it was linked on Twitter so I can't get back in to give you guys a link.

[centralcal]

Mediaite has audio of Rick Sanchez imploding at the LUN

[Ignatz]

--For experience:
Worked in the local community spreading HIV/AIDS information so as to challenge the stigma, discrimination and isolation attached to the disease--

In the interests of truth in advertising.

[Thomas Collins]

If filming and reporting on folks acting on erotic impulses, or trying to use such impulses for trickery or other purpose, is going to be a part of JOM posting, it might be worth a serious thread on the recent suicide of a Rutgers student whose erotic behavior in a dorm room was apparently caught on camera by a couple of his classmates and reported. See LUN.

[Captain Hate]

I guess the big question is how much more embarrassment does Duke need to fire Brodhead.

[Ignatz]

I need someone to help me with my math homework.
The claim is, extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 will "cost" $700 billion and extending the ones for lower earners will cost $3 trillion.
Since those making over $250K supposedly pay somewhere around 40-50% of income taxes how does the math work out for the $700B vs $3T claims?

[bgates]

That Sanchez quote reminds me of a joke I heard more than a decade ago, from, ironically, Jon Stewart. It's about how the start of a Farrakhan speech sounds reasonable:

Stewart [doing Farrakhan impression but it's not racist]: "The black man must overcome his poverty."

Stewart [as himself]: "OK...."

Stewart [Farrakhan]: "He must educate himself."

Stewart [himself]: "Right...."

Stewart [Farrakhan]: "So he can overthrow the blood sucking Jew."

Stewart [himself]: "Wha?"

I’m telling you that everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart,
Yeah.
and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart,
True.
and to imply that somehow they, the people in this country who are Jewish, are an oppressed minority? Yeah.
Wha? I meant "a lot like Stewart" in the same way that Sanchez is a lot like Stewart - they're all fascist-loving douchebags.

[Ignatz]

I need someone to help me with my math homework.
Should have put this in this thread to begin with:

The claim is, extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 will "cost" $700 billion and extending the ones for lower earners will cost $3 trillion.
Since those making over $250K supposedly pay somewhere around 40-50% of income taxes how does the math work out for the $700B vs $3T claims?

[hit and run]

TM's last three posts:

•My Name Is Karen Owen
•Feeling The Love Again
•James O'Keefe, With "A More Sleazy Persona Than Normal"

Yike!

http://media.ign.com/ign/mpaa/rated_r.gif>

[Ignatz]

Sorry about that.
Obviously I need help with much more than just my math homework. :(

[hit and run]

Oh,wait. New thread.

Whew.

[Sue]

I guess the big question is...

When will Sylvia show up?

[JM Hanes]

Thomas Collins:

I think it's pretty instructive that having read little more than the headlines on the Rutgers story, I just assumed that it was a female student who committed suicide.

[RichatUF]

Ignatz-

I was looking around on Google for the specific report (thought it would have GAO), but it is a 10-year horizon, with all sorts of goodies attached (interest payments on the deficit), with a static analysis and interesting projections for growth, employment, and interest rates. Geithner seems to have been the first one to use the claim.

[Ignatz]

Thanks Rich.

[Comanche Voter]

Well I've now seen a living walking talking definition of a "hippie punch".

[Old Lurker]

Iggy without even going to the tables I can tell you that you are correct. The figure I committed to memory was that the top 10%, earners > $350,000, paid 75% of the taxes. So that means the < $350,000 could not have paid more than 25%. So moving the breakpoint down to $250,000 skews the numbers even more in support of your point.

Bottom line: Bozo as usual has not a clue about what he is talking about when it comes to numbers and dollars.

[Tom Maguire]

If this was a guy writing about his female partners, there would be outrage.

Yes, and there ought to be. This incident will no doubt spark reflections on the odd double standard that guys are probably not shamed when the world learns they sometimes get drunk and score with women of dubious morals, yet women doing the same thing create issues.

As to legal recourse - it's her life, isn't it? Legally, I would think she has the right to kiss and tell.

The claim is, extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 will "cost" $700 billion and extending the ones for lower earners will cost $3 trillion.
Since those making over $250K supposedly pay somewhere around 40-50% of income taxes how does the math work out for the $700B vs $3T claims?

Interesting question. I recall reading that $3 trillion but didn't doublecheck.

And now I see that this Megan McArdle post from two weeks ago offered a $2 trillion figure.

Hmm - as I have known about my memory for years, distrust but verify.

[JM Hanes]

hit:

Funny you should mention it. I've been thinking about commenting on the R content within the threads themselves, but have hesitated because I do love the feistiness of all my JOM pals here, and I don't mean to single anyone out. I've dished out some nasty myself, and I don't mind it in occasional doses, but between assholes & excrement & teabagging & etc., it's gotten to seem like a steadier diet of "Oh Yuck" than "Yikes."

I'm not talking about expletives which look more like punctuation, and I'm not lobbying for a child safe site, but I'm pretty well maxed out on gross imagery, and I think it may put off potential newcomers too.

I suppose this is sort of an ironic place to put this comment, but there's my 2¢.

[jimmyk]

Re Iggy's question, let me repeat my answer from the previous thread:

I can't vouch for the exact numbers, but there's no contradiction. Remember that despite what the MSM says, the Bush tax cuts were across the board. In fact, proportionally they favored lower income people. (For example, the lowest bracket went from 15 to 10 percent, while the highest went from 39.6 to 35.) So it stands to reason that if you undo those cuts, more of the revenue is going to come from the non-rich.

Good luck getting that explanation from the MSM, which is stuck on the idea that the Bush tax cuts were for the rich. More evidence that the Republicans should not even bother trying to appease the left--they will get hammered anyway.

[Cecil Turner]

Since those making over $250K supposedly pay somewhere around 40-50% of income taxes how does the math work out for the $700B vs $3T claims?

Like jimmyk, I did a quick check and the marginal rate increases for higher wage earners is less than the rates for the lower earners (10-15=50% increase, while 35-39.6= 13% increase), so it's taking a bigger slice of the pie. There are also a lot of other taxes and exemptions involved (child credits, capital gains, AMT, etc.). However, I think the arithmetic doesn't exactly add up and the estimates of the total "cost" of the packages are evolving (just as the plans themselves are).

The "who pays" percentages appear to be correct, though.

[RichatUF]

The media hasn't made it easy to find where that $700 billion comes from, but Geithner leaves a clue, in a speech given to the Center for American Progress. The Hill gives us more detail and another clue. Tax policy analysis by the Washington Post-looks like I made a wrong turn somewhere.

How did they come up with the numbers, they made them up using polling data.

[Ignatz]

If they want to stick to those numbers, seems to me the converse, reverse, inverse or whatever verse of their argument would be that Bush, far from rewarding his rich cronies with huge cuts and only throwing crumbs to the working class, actually gave the middle class three times as large a tax break as the landed gentry, no?

[jimmyk]

seems to me the converse, reverse, inverse or whatever verse

That's right. Here's how it works. Take Joe making $50K and paying $10K in income tax, and Louis earning $500K and paying $150K in taxes. Cut the Joe's taxes by $5K and Louis's by $10K. That favors the rich! (Even though the cut is 2% of Louis's income and 10% of Joe's.)

Now undo the cuts. Why that favors the rich too! You're only increasing Louis's taxes by 2% of his income, and your increasing Joe's by 10% of his.

The bottom line is that anything short of literally taking money from Louis (who doesn't deserve to make that much anyway) and handing it to Joe is favoring the wealthy.

[Janet]

I'm not following why this Karen Owens thing is news. I look around, & everything in our society celebrates casual sex, multiple partners, & telling as many people about it as possible. Why is she news? I also wondered why the Tiger Woods affairs were any big deal.
We advertise the swinger lifestyle...on TV, in movies, in songs, in advertising, in books (especially teen/tween books), & then we are shocked, SHOCKED that young people are doing these things.

[macphisto]

why these things are news is because there's a certain type of man--comprising a fairly large part of the male population, just how large i can't say--who wants to believe that the random dispensement of sexual favors by some women means that they themselves might someday be the beneficiary of similar favors. it's the Playboy Philosophy all over again, with the vast majority of men comprising the audience with its collective nose pressed against the glass while the stripper struts her stuff, thinking they're swingers while they're actually pathetic marks.

[Janet]

Also in the tragic story of Tyler Clementi, I wonder who "the man" was that was meeting with him for sex. Tyler is always referred to as a freshman, but the partner is referred to as some man. According to this account it appears Clementi knew he was being filmed???

[cathyf]

As far as Ignatz's question goes, I think that it points to a positive point that somehow gets overlooked about our country, and the Tea Party. Which is that we are, in principal, still in favor of a progressive tax system, but we just want the total tax burden to be lower and government to be smaller.

If the nation's markets are freed from such burdens as cap & trade, health-insurance prohibition, insane environmental rules based on garbage science, the tort lottery, etc., then we will all be more prosperous AND the government will cost less to run. And, yes, people of good will (pretty much everyone but the prog slavers) are happy to see their neighbors succeed and do well. And rich people expect that they ought to pay more than poor people, and poor people work hard so that they might put themselves in a higher tax bracket by virtue of their successes.

It's the class warfare agitators who are trying to convince the poor that what the rich have rightfully belongs to the poor. We play right into their hands by reversing the argument and accusing the poor of stealing from the rich. It's the liberal fascists who are stirring up warfare so that they can steal from the poor AND the rich. What needs to happen is for rich and poor to cooperate to stand united against the prog slavers, and then to engage in commerce with each other so that they ALL get richer!

[flodigarry]

Karen Owen has been done a great dis-service in her "education". While on the surface, there may seemingly have been equality in treatment of sexual flings, in reality, perceptions have not really changed that much in the past few decades.

The fact that she felt no shame in discussing her adventures, tells me that she has a very shallow view of how others might perceive her activities, and that when she is called to account for her revelations, she will be astounded when confronted with countering points of view.

Someone confident in herself, her sexuality and her relationships, should feel no need to document her encounters.

[pagar]

"How did they come up with the numbers, they made them up using polling data."

Is there any other way leftists could get numbers? Anyone ever seen any numbers from this regime that are based on facts?

[PD]

Maybe Karen Owen has Jennicam envy.

[PD]

Is there any other way leftists could get numbers? Anyone ever seen any numbers from this regime that are based on facts?

/me raises hand

When Obama uses that $700 billion figure, there's really such a figure.

It was the cost of the TARP bill that Obama voted for as a senator to bail out the rich Wall Street "fat cats" that he otherwise so villifies.

That's not really "based on facts" in the sense that you mean it, I suppose. :-)

[sookie]

What about the male athletes whose names, photos, and tales of sexual prowess (or lack thereof) are now tabloid fodder? I suspect there are going to be invasion of privacy lawsuits in the near future

Alred is free again...

[Pagar]

PD, that's great! and goes so well with the list of billionaires that RichatUF put up in the "one of these is not like the others" thread at 02:11pm 3 Oct. That lists billionaires (otherwise known as fat cats) who contributed to the Obama campaign.