(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
I’ll be brief today and simply try to put a few smiles in your weekend.
Many of you know of Churchill’s good friend F. E. Smith’s (later Lord Birkenhead) quip: “Winston is easily satisfied with the best.”
Churchill enjoyed the quip and often repeated it.
Here from page 79 of Dominique Enright’s The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill (O’Mara Books Limited, 2001) are a few of Churchill's own quips echoing F. E. Smith’s assessment of him:
“I always manage somehow to adjust to any new level of luxury without whimper or complaint. It is one of my most winning traits.”
“I have in my life concentrated more on self-expression than on self-denial.”
His self-deprecating humor is one of his qualities that makes Churchill such a wonderful “companion” with whom to spend time.
I hope you have a book handy or search the Net to find something that will allow you to spend some time with Churchill this weekend.
I continue to think about those of you impacted by Ike. If you have suggestions for organizations to send various forms of help, please provide the addresses and I’ll post them.
Friday, September 19, 2008
(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
A while back Sen. Barack Obama assured us:
“I don’t take money from federal registered lobbyists, because I want to answer to you when I’m in the White House. I don’t want to answer to all these fat-cat lobbyists!”Today American Digest asks:
”So now that he’s scoring political points for the ban, what impact has it actually had?”It seems virtually none.
Take a look at American Digest’s post - "How's that Obama 'No money from lobbyists' thing working out?" – here.
Hat tip: Instapundit
Posted by JWM at 4:44 PM
Liberal Senator Joe Biden says if we were really patriotic, we’d all want to pay more taxes. That way, people like himself, Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Charlie Rangel would have more of our money to spend.
The Democratic Vice-presidential candidate didn’t real say the part about him and his fellow Dems wanting more of our money to spend, but that’s what it amounts to.
Biden’s “patriotic” remark reminded a JinC Regular to send along a link to a March 2008 George Will column which begins - - -
Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers.
Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on.
But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. …
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households.
But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
Will’s entire column’s here.
Using the Gore standard, the most “charitable” people in the world are members of Congress led by liberal Democrats.
That being the case, can we consider the earmark Sen. Barack Obama obtained for his wife Michelle’s employer, the U. of Chicago Health System, about the time it gave her a promotion and a hefty six-figure pay increase a case of "charity" beginning at home?
Message to Sen. Biden: If you want to talk people’s money and their patriotism, salute entrepreneurs who create jobs.
Salute commercial builders and developers whose work increases communities tax bases and provides places where people can work, earn a living and pay a reasonable amount of taxes for honest and needed government services.
And demand the sleazy Charlie Rangel step down from his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congress’ committee charged with writing tax legislation and bills affecting Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlement programs.
Hat tip: BN
Posted by JWM at 10:08 AM
Thursday, September 18, 2008
(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
Grace Hamblin, O.B.E., became one of Churchill’s secretaries in the early 30s and subsequently served as Clementine’s secretary through 1966. The two women also became close friends.
During a talk in 1987 before the International Churchill Society, Hamblin recalled one of Churchill’s “most endearing qualities:”
One of his most endearing qualities was his love of animals. He surrounded himself with them.Grace Hamblin’s entire talk is hosted here at the Churchill Centre’s site.
In his out of door peregrinations - building a wall, making a dam or an island, touring the farm, feeding the fish or his beloved black swans - he was always accompanied by a dog.
In the early days this was a pug, which didn't suit him at all really. Later there was his faithful poodle, Rufus.
Rufus, I'm sorry to say, took rather a liking to me. Poodles are very one-man dogs, you know. And this made Sir Winston rather cross.
He'd say, with his head down, "You've stolen my dog's affection."
I didn't, really. It was just that I was there, and I took him for walks which nobody else did. No wonder the dog liked me. He was a good dog, because after Sir Winston had been away, he would always welcome him back - which was very decent of him.
When Rufus died, I had him at Chartwell, and Sir Winston happened at that time to be in hospital in London with a broken hip.
I telephoned to Lady Churchill and asked her what action she'd like me to take because it was quite a big thing in our lives. She said, "You'd better write him a little note and I'll take it along to him," which she did.
She told me afterwards that when he read it the tears came to his eyes. He was very emotional and the tears came easily. He had said, "Poor Miss, she must have a puppy."
So you see, I was forgiven.
Most of you already know about Sen. Joe Biden’s “patriotic” statement which Sen. Obama’s MSM Tank Corps is struggling to cover over.
Obama’s AP’s cover over effort follows. If you’re familiar with it, you may want to scroll down below the star line where comments begin.
The AP’s cover over in full - - -
Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. In a new TV ad that repeats widely debunked claims about the Democratic tax plan, the Republican campaign calls Obama's tax increases "painful."
Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.
Although Republican John McCain claims that Obama would raise taxes, the independent Tax Policy Center and other groups conclude that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposals.
"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."
McCain released a television ad Thursday charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that "a big government casts a big shadow on us all," the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal.
"Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork," the ad says. "And we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
The McCain campaign said the ad is set to run nationally.
Where to begin?
Let’s start with the AP's:
Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic [and AP] presidential candidate Barack Obama . . . the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.”The dissembling AP knows the kind of tax Obama's talking about - income tax - is one on which almost 50% of those filing tax returns pay no taxes at all.
So how do you give people who pay no income taxes an income “tax cut?”
Well, even The One can't can’t really do that.
But as Lincoln said,“You can fool some of the people all the time.”
And you have your best chance of fooling people if you’re a liberal Democrat like Sen. Obama with most of MSM pitching your shill.
That being the case, you get the kind of “cover” the AP provided for Obama when Biden made his “patriotic” statement.
With that "cover," the public won’t learn what the National Taxpayers Union reports (with comparative tables) and what a knowledgeable JinC friend summarizes thus:
The attached shows that based on 2006 Federal tax returns, the top 10 % of income earners paid 71% of our country's total income taxes -- the bottom 50 % of income earners paid only 3 % of total taxes.How did the Dems ever decide the way for us to show our patriotism is to pay more taxes?
In 1999 the top 10 % paid 66 % of total taxes which means the percent of total taxes paid by the highest income earners is growing over time.
What Senator Biden refers to as the "wealthy " are already paying more than their fair share of taxes. In stating that "it's time to be patriotic, time to jump in, time to be part of the deal," Senator Biden is implying that these hard working taxpayers are currently shirking their responsibilities to their country, which can't be farther from the truth.
As you know ,raising taxes on the individuals and businesses who drive our economy is irresponsible economic policy . This will lead to a worsening of the current economic conditions and hurt people at all income levels, particularly those at the lower income levels.
The Obama/Biden tax plan is really a welfare plan designed to redistribute wealth in this country -- a Marxist-type recipe for disaster.
Here's the video of Mrs. Michelle Obama making her "she's cute" remark.
MSM needs to ask Michelle Obama why she and her husband took their children for religious instruction to a church where the pastor was the raving racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright?
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin for the video link
This from the AP’s Obama reporter-supporter Glen Johnson:
Top aides to Republian John McCain are claiming Democrat Barack Obama and his advisers are exploiting Wall Street's financial problems for political gain.The first sentence of Obama supporter-reporter Johnson’s story could have read:
Aide Steve Schmidt, who worked for the Bush-Cheney team in 2004, told reporters Thursday aboard McCain's plane that Obama is "cheerleading this crisis." He said McCain is seeking a bipartisan solution although Schmidt and aides Mark Salter and Nicole Wallace also said Democratic congressional leaders should be condemned for considering adjourning without addressing the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the sale of Merrill Lynch and the emergency government loan to insurer AIG.
The aides say the Arizona senator will make the same criticisms during his speeches.(all emphasis added)
Top aides to Republian John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama and his advisers of exploiting Wall Street's financial problems for political gain.Reporters and bloggers know “accused” is stronger the “claiming.”
That’s no doubt why Johnson went with “claiming.”
Reporters routinely quote campaign aides without referencing their past campaign affiliations unless doing so is relevant to the story at hand.
Schmidt’s connection to the ’04 Bush-Cheney team is not relevant to Johnson’s story.
But tying Sen. McCain to Bush-Cheney is part of Team Obama’s strategy.
So “on strategy” reporter-supporter Johnson drops the Bush-Cheney reference into his story.
Johnson uses “although” to suggest there’s something contradictory regarding McCain seeking a bipartisan solution and his aides condemning Dems for considering adjournment without addressing the current financial market turmoil.
But leaders often seek bipartisan solutions while aides condemn the other side.
At the time of the integration of Central High in Little Rock, President Eisenhower sought bipartisan solutions to many of the crises in Little Rock even as some of his aides condemned those Dems in Congress who were doing nothing to help the President and, in fact, were supporting the segregationists.
Hackers broke into the Yahoo! e-mail account that Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin used for official business as Alaska's governor, revealing as evidence a few inconsequential personal messages she has received since John McCain selected her as his running mate.
"This is a shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law. The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these e-mails will destroy them," the McCain campaign said in a statement.
The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply.
The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago - prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate - after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides.
The rest of the article’s here.
Who’s surprised the AP, a leader of MSM’s Obama Tank Corps, is refusing to cooperate with the Secret Service?
And who’s surprised the AP’s trying to make it seem Palin is the one who somehow did something wrong.
The slimes and smears never stop and the hacks go on, all gleefully reported by the AP.Hat tip: Drudge
Posted by JWM at 10:53 AM
Excerpts from the Times of London’s associate editor Rosemary Righter’s column today, followed by my very brief remarks below the star line.
Righter notes - - -
This week General Petraeus handed over command to his stalwart deputy, General Ray Odierno, with thanks to American and the much improved Iraqi forces for turning hard but not hopeless into “hard but hopeful”, and this time was hailed for his modesty. Incontrovertibly, Iraq on his watch has pulled back from the precipice.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not finished, as constant suicide bomb attacks attest; but it is no longer an existential menace. Its losses since April are reported on jihadist networks to be double its casualties in the four years from 2003 to 2007 - not least because of the Sunni “Awakening” against the nihilistic brutality of al-Qaeda's methods.
Anbar, the “unwinnable” western province that was the heartland of the bloody Sunni insurgency and also of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is in consequence now so peaceable that on September 1 it became the 11th of Iraq's 18 provinces to be handed from American to Iraqi military control.
In the south, Basra has been reclaimed from Shia militia rule (despite rather than because of Britain's inadequate and in part shameful contribution), as, for now, has the militantly Shia Sadr City area of Baghdad. Countrywide, daily attacks have fallen from around 180 last year to around 25, and there has been a drop of almost 80 per cent in civilian deaths. Street markets, even the odd swimming pool, have reopened. Despite still-dysfunctional electricity and water supplies and inefficient and corrupt public administration, the economy is picking up.
The surge has ended: the additional units are out of Iraq. The gains are holding, with monthly US military fatalities dramatically down, from a peak of 126 as the surge got under way to 18 last month. They are holding because the surge involved much more than extra US troops.
Militarily, it underpinned the switch, masterminded by General Petraeus, to a counter-insurgency strategy that moved forces out of barracks into Iraqi streets with a mission to protect the Iraqi population and earn their trust. Politically, the surge sent the all-important message that the US was not, after all, going to cut its losses and run.
That altered the dynamics in Iraq. Factions that had been jostling for power ahead of America's discomfited departure realised that the US would stay around until it could in some confidence leave Iraq to manage its own destiny. The Sunni switch to alliance with US forces was the most dramatic consequence, a turnaround that General Petraeus shrewdly encouraged and financed. Political conciliation is not yet a fact but at least it is talked about.
General Petraeus, however, no more does modesty than he does cock-eyed optimism. If he says that progress is fragile and still reversible, he must be taken seriously.
It would be as big an error to declare the surge a “success”, as Mr Obama has abruptly found it expedient to do, as it was to oppose it in the first place, if doing so is a prelude to cutting American troop strengths in Iraq rapidly and “moving on”. This is perilously close to being the new Washington consensus. (emphasis added)
It is not the Iraqi consensus. As Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, said this week: “What we do next is critical to the viability and endurance of any hard-won gains we have made.” Big tests are imminent.
Nouri al-Maliki's Shia-dominated Government takes over paying the wages of the Sunni “Sons of Iraq” from the US next month. It could make the huge mistake of refusing to incorporate more than a fifth of these fighters into Iraq's security forces: they could return to insurgency. It is still foot-dragging on vital laws on elections and sharing oil revenues throughout Iraq.
Mr Zebari did not say so, but until Iraq's factions get serious about sharing power a relapse into violence is a real risk; and most Iraqis know, even if they resent the American presence, that it is their insurance cover. Politically as well as militarily, the US holds the ring.
There is, Mr Zebari insists, no fixed timetable for US troop withdrawal: decisions must be “conditions-led on the ground” to avoid “a vacuum of instability”. Nor must there be. There are no short cuts to stabilising Iraq. And that is not what Americans want to hear.
Righter’s entire column’s here.
I’m traveling in a few minutes. I’ll be shutting down blogging until early this evening.
However, Righter’s column is outstanding so I wanted to call it to your attention ASAP.
I’ll say more tonight.
I’ll be interested to hear what you think.
Hat tip: RealClearPolitics.com
Posted by JWM at 9:53 AM
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
In In Search of Churchill: A Historian’s Journey Sir Martin Gilbert recounts some of his efforts and adventures tracking down and interviews around the world people who’d known and worked with Churchill.
Gilbert tells us - - -
Secretaries are seldom mentioned in political biography either by worked or name, yet they see their employers at close quarters, in all circumstances and moods, and at critical moments. Might not they too be of help in the search for the character of their employer? (p. 153)
[Gilbert located former Churchill secretaries beginnings with one who’d actually worked for him before 1910 right through to ones who’d worked for him up to his last years. The all had wonderful stories to tell and good things to say about Churchill; all save one.]
Gilbert continues - - -
For the post-war years, Jane Portal, Chips Gemmell, Catherine Snelling and Doreen Pugh each gave me vivid glimpses of their boss. Each had worked with him for five years or more, itself a testimony to his qualities.
One lady, not one of those who became devoted to him, who worked with Churchill for just under three months in 1931 while he was in the United States, did not like him. She made her objections plain when, nearly sixty years later, she was interviewed at length by the BBC.
It was curious, and for me distressing that the other secretaries, who were with him for so much longer, and saw him at his daily work, were given far less time to say their piece.
The overriding impression that his secretaries gave me was of a man who worked hard himself, drove them equally hard, but did so with humour and kindness, alert to their personal needs and quick to apologize for any outburst of anger. (p.270)
The same MSM now pumping all those “elect-Obama” stories were pumping “Pelosi will clean up the House” stories during the ’06 congressional campaign.
So how’s House Speaker Pelosi doing?
From JamieWearingFool using Pelosi’s "I See No Reason Why Mr. Rangel Should Step Down" for a post title and following with - - -
Proving she's as arrogant as she is clueless, Nancy Pelosi just giftwrapped a campaign issue for the GOP. They'd be wise to open the present and share it with the entire country.
Embattled US Rep. Charles Rangel will not give up his plum leadership position on one of the most powerful committees in Congress, his lawyer said yesterday.Since Pelosi doesn't see any reasons, let's provide some for her.
Despite growing calls for him to step aside as chairman of the tax-law-writing Ways and Means Committee - because he failed to report rental income from his Dominican Republic hideaway on his own tax returns - Rangel will stay put as the House Ethics Committee investigates his personal finances.
"Mr. Rangel has not considered, nor has it ever been on the table, that he would step aside from his current position as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee," said the Harlem Democrat's lawyer, Lanny Davis.
* The congressman's Sunny Isles, Fla., condo was purchased in 2004 for $335,000 and listed as a rental, although he didn't report income on it. He then sold it in 2007 for a $60,000 profit, but didn't list the sale, as is required.Be sure to visit JamieWearingFool here.
* He never disclosed, as mandated, the sale of his Washington, DC, home in 2000. Property records list the price as $500,000.
* He only sporadically listed rental income for a West 132nd Street home. Then, when he unloaded it in 2004, he didn't report the sale. The home's value was listed as less than $100,000 in 2002; in 2004, Rangel said it was worth $250,000 to $500,000.
* The value of his personal portfolio fluctuated wildly without explanation. The investments he reported grew from $50,001 in 2000 to somewhere between $177,000 and $530,000 in 2001. In 2002, he reported new holdings worth $115,000 to $315,000.
Normal people would be facing jail time for such shenanigans.
And don’t forget Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Rangel BOTH want you to vote for Sen. Obama for President.
Posted by JWM at 9:02 PM
If you’re not already familiar with The Raleigh N&O without its mask (Post 1), I encourage you to read it before continuing with this post.
Post 1 drew a comment which I want to present here in full and italics. I’ll then respond to it.
Regarding N&O editor Linda Williams' 2 emails contained in full in Post 1, JF said - - -
This is an appalling insight into the angry mindset of a woman who many believe made some of the most disastrous decisions in the early days of the Duke Frame...most notoriously "shaping" Mangum's story so that it deleted anything that did not assist the racial metanarrative of "Sister Survivor."
Those of us who wondered for many, many months ...as we pressed Sill on the Editor's Blog...WHY would the local newspaper pursue such inflammatory and biased coverage...well, John, at last, we have our answer. This is an angry, insecure woman using her position as Editor to shape the news, promote those whose hues and views she shares and punish those she deems unworthy.
She is a disgrace.
She is the embodiment of the reason her employer is losing both money and the trust of the average reader. Williams and those like her have made the N&O into an untrustworthy rag, a high school slam book, authored by non-professional juveniles to "get" those they do not like. It is no more accurate or appealing than that.
I agree with much that JF says about editor Linda Williams who we’re told was lead editor of the N&O’s racially inflammatory, malicious, and deliberately fraudulent March 25, 2006 story the N&O said, without any qualification to suggest doubt, was about a young black mother’s “ordeal” which ended finally in “sexual violence.”
Subsequent to the publication of the March 25 story, Williams has lied about how it was put together. For example, on Oct. 5, 2006 in a post at the Editors’ Blog Williams told readers:
The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision and I stand by it,
But the March 25 story contains statements from the interview that have never showed in any police report cited by the now disbarred Nifong, defense attorneys or AG Roy Cooper who with AG staffers reviewed the entire case file.
Police reports are public records. Despite being asked to ID the one it sats it used, the N&O has never done so.
Other journalists who’ve worked the story say there never was such a police report as the N&O claims.
If she’s capable of shame, Williams has plenty to feel shameful about.
But I want to make this very clear to everyone: on the N&O’s Duke framing and ongoing cover-up of its framing and the rest of her work, Linda Williams, while influential, didn’t act alone. Others bear responisbility, too.
In March 2006 Williams was one of three N&O deputy managing editors, John Drescher was managing editor, and Melanie Sill was executive editor.
Sill and Drescher both stood with Williams and others who worked the framing stories and are maintaining the cover-up of what happened at the N&O as it led the Duke witch hunt days before Nifong began speaking publicly about the case
Here’s part of a comment (10/6 @ 15:40) Sill made on the thread of Williams’ Editors’ Blog post:
What Linda has said (and I have said in the past) is that the editing of this story, which was a news story on deadline, followed our usual guidelines and cautions. …
The second day we were working to talk to all the principals. We got the woman identified as the victim and interviewed her. As Linda notes, it wasn't an extensive or extensively planned interview -- it was boots on the street hustle to track down the key players.
We published what was newsworthy and went through the usual process of including some information and leaving out other information. As noted many times over neither the players nor their families or lawyers would talk to us that day.
The intensity of interest in this interview with the reported victim is understandable, but I think Linda's main point is that much of this speculation about the handling of this story is simply imagination at work. The interview was good reporting but certainly not the end of our reporting. …
In Oct. 2007 the McClatchy Newspaper Co. promoted Sill to executive editor of its flagship paper, the Sacramento Bee, and Drescher to executive editor at the N&O. Williams and the other two dep. mgr. editors were named Senior Editors.
Drescher, in his Dec. 16,2007 column told N&O readers:
... We felt that [deadline] pressure during the Duke lacrosse case. We broke the news that 46 team members had been ordered to give DNA in a rape investigation.
The day we published that story, we had an interview -- the only one to date -- with the accuser. The next day, we published her account.
I wish we had held that story for a day and done more reporting on the accuser, her statement and her prior run-in with the law.
Many other times, we've held back when our competitors were using anonymous sources. ...
The same day Drescher's column appeared I posted in response. Here's part of what I said last December 16:
People familiar with both the Mar. 25, 2006 front-page story Drescher refers to (and) the facts available to the N&O at the time of publication continue to ask why the N&O published it.
The story by reporters Samiha Khanna and Anne Blythe stank like a sewer pit the day it was published.
Today it has as much credibility as the news conferences Mike Nifong began giving two days after the Khanna/Blythe story appeared.
So what's the N&O saying today?
I think some people will nod and tell themselves something like: “The N&O was under deadline. Of course! That explains what happened. Why do those lacrosse people keep complaining and suing. It’s time to move on.”
And I feel sure sensible people will ask questions such as:
Why is Drescher only saying this now, twenty-one months after the N&O published the story?
Drescher says: ”I wish we had held that story for a day and done more reporting on the accuser, her statement and her prior run-in with the law.”
What stopped the N&O from doing “more reporting” the day after it published the story?
Or the day after that which was Mar. 27, 2006, the first day Nifong began speaking publicly about the case?
Drescher doesn't say, does he?
The N&O had reported on Crystal Mangum’s “prior run-in with the law” in June 2002.
So how can “competitive pressure” explain reporters Samiha Khanna's and Anne Blythe’s failure to mention it in the “anonymous interview/sexual violence” story?
When and in what detail did the N&O first report on Mangum’s “run-in?”
Why didn’t Drescher tell us that, and explain the delay?
Why did the N&O withhold from its Mar. 25 story what it knew about the players’ cooperation with police?
Why did reporters Khanna and Blythe promulgate the falsehoods that the players had refused to cooperate with police and formed what the N&O said was a “wall of solidarity?”
I’m sure many of you have other questions. Please share them.
What do you think are the chances Drescher will answer your questions and mine fully and honestly?
As far as I know, Drescher has never publicly answered the questions asked last December 16.
Sill, Drescher and Williams bear considerable responsibility for the N&O's spring 2006 Duke lacrosse framing and for the cover-up of how and why that was done. So do many other N&O journalists.
In Post 3 Friday I'll discusss when the N&O first told readers about Mangum's 2002 "run in" with the law, when it first told readers that in June 2002 when the "run in" occurred she'd been dancing at a "gentlemen's club," and what the time and circumstances of the N&O's reporting of Mangum's "run in" tell us about its "newsroom culture."
Hat tip: Locomotive Breath
Posted by JWM at 2:12 PM
The Maverick Conservative reminds us Sen. McCain tried to do something to head off the current mortgage mess and tells us who tried to stop him. Can you spell "Senator Obama?"
MC's post's titled; "McCain Proven Right: Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act of 2005."
It begins - - -
Barack "World" Obama and Christopher Dodd (he of involvement with Countrywide mortgage, eventually absorbed by Bank of America before it could go under) were the two politicians who received the MOST money from Fannie Maeand Freddie Mac as those "government sponsored entities, as those entities lobbied Congress to BLOCK reform efforts. (I think Sen. Kerry was #1 on the list. - - JinC)
Meanwhile, John McCain co-sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise REgulatory Reform Act of 2005. That act was BLOCKED by Democrats, along with some of the "goold old boy" Republicans that Palin fought in Alaska.
What's more, McCain PREDICTED the present mortgage problem He made a speech in the Congressional record talking aobuut the accounting fraud at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (fraud committed mainly by Democrats).
Not only that, McCain said he was "concerned" about the magnitude of teh role played by these government sponsored entities in our mortgage market, when they were obviously not being vigourously regulated.
As on Iraq, it is McCain who proved RIGHT on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Obama who is on the side of the people who BLOCKED reform. ...
There's more to the post; you can read it all here.
Dems say the GOP is the party of "big business." I'm OK with big businesses that play by the rultes. Most of them create jobs and wealth.
I don't like government special interests that set things up so that Clinton appointed heads of Freddie and Fannie walk away from the messs with hundreds of millions of taxpayer money in their pockets and time to serve now as Obama advisors.
Hat tip: BN
Posted by JWM at 11:13 AM
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Kevin Gregory at McClatchy Watch reports - - -
McClatchy announced Tuesday it has cut its quarterly dividend by half and says it will make additional reductions of roughly ten percent of its work force.
Separately McClatchy announced an additional cost restructuring to reduce its workforce by about 10%, or approximately 1,150 full-time equivalent employee positions (FTE's) as the company manages through today's difficult advertising downturn and positions itself for future success in an increasingly competitive environment.*********************************
McClatchy said roughly half of the staff reductions are coming through voluntary programs and managed attrition. The company expects to achieve savings of $100 million over the next four quarters, excluding severance costs of approximately $20 million, from the staff reductions along with other savings initiatives. This represents a savings of more than 6% of total cash expenses based on cash expenses over the last 12 months. ...
There’s more to Kevin’s report including the numbers on major declines in McClatchy’s August 2008 year over year advertising and consolidated revenues as well as a listing of McClatchy newspapers offering buyouts in the past two months.
JinC Regulars know the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observer is on the buyout list.
They also know a few things are up at McClatchy: anti-Palin stories and pro-Obama stories.
I continue to say it and feel it: Regret for all the hard-working non-journalists at McClatchy's newspapers and all those papers' reporters and editors who "report the news straight."
Give Kevin’s post a look here.
Posted by JWM at 6:55 PM
A reader at Instapundit says:
I would put together a commercial that said…Great idea for an ad.
James A. Johnson - former Fannie Mae CEO and Obama Advisor
Just cost you billions in taxes
Franklin Raines – former Fannie Mae CEO and Obama Advisor
Just cost you billions in taxes
Barack Obama – If we can’t afford his advisors, how can we afford him?
Could the McCain people work in a reference to convicted felon and Obama advisor Tony Rezko?
Has anyone calculated how much taxpayer money Rezko pocketed?
Maybe Team Obama could do the numbers so they could be sure they're Wright.
Oops! What was I thinking of?
"God damn America" and "KKK-America."
Yes, that's it!
That and Obama wants us to trust him because his judgment is so good.
Posted by JWM at 4:50 PM
Here’s a safe bet in a troubled market: Rep. Charlie Rangal, the convicted felons Tony Rezko and Kwame Fitzpartick, and Sen. Chris Dodd, all staunch Obama supporters, were also staunch supporters, along with Obama, of the policies and laws that led to the current financial mess markets are now working through.
Now excerpts from Investor’s Business Daily with comments below the star line.
IBD starts out reminding us - - -
… [It] was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making.
It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street.
But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck. (emphasis added)
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late.
Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists , resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets.
In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road. …
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
The entire Investor's Business Daily editorial is here.
The person who sent me the link to the Investor's Business Daily editorial knows a thing or two about business.
The editorial presents some good arguments that over regulation and cronyism during the Clinton years were the main causes for the recent problems with banks and other financial institutions.The Obama campaign continues to incorrectly blame Bush's policies for these problems and everything else that goes wrong.Why would anyone support Obama’s “more government” policy.
Note in particular the reference to Jamie Gorelick's being paid lots of money while she was at Fannie Mae. As you know Gorelick was a member of Clinton's administration and is the lead attorney for Duke in the civil suits brought by the lacrosse players.
In my opinion, more government regulation is not necessarily the right solution to our country's current financial problems --- that would be an example of the cure being worse than the disease.
Because Obama’s cronies such as Rengal and Dodd will be the ones “fixing things” with help, of course, from people like former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick.
That would be very good for President Obama and the “community leaders” who are shelling out millions to put him in The White House.
But it wouldn't be good for America.
Posted by JWM at 4:21 PM
Remember way back during the 2006 congressional campaign Democrats were telling everyone they wanted to "clean up the sleaze and corruption in Congress?"
So they got the power to do that when they elected Nancy Pelosi Speaker.
Now she can't even get the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, that walking mountain of sleaze and corruption Charlie Rangel, to even temporarily give up his chairmanship.
And all those House Democrats who wanted honesty in Congress are saying nothing.
There's a great opportunity for Congressional Republicans if they'll demand both Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Rangal step down from their chairmanships.
Posted by JWM at 1:27 PM
The McClatchy Company’s Raleigh News & Observer describes itself as “fair and accurate.” It’s senior editors frequently tell readers the N&O adhers to the highest standards of journalism.
The N&O's public editor, Ted Vaden, “the reader’s watchdog,” is an enthusiastic N&O fan who often praises the paper's journalistic ethics which he likens to his own.
If you’re a frequent reader here, however, you know that since 2005 I’ve been documenting the N&O often shoddy, false, politically biased and racially inflammatory news reporting.
The N&O’s deliberately fraudulent and racially inflammatory coverage of the Duke Hoax and frame-up attempt in spring 2006 and its efforts since to cover that up exemplify the kind of “journalism” the N&O frequently provides readers.
But most readers aren’t aware of that. They buy into the N&O's “fair & accurate” meme and Vaden’s Sunday columns assuring them their reading a great paper.
It’s too bad those trusting N&O readers weren’t spending time at G. D. Gearino’s eponymous blog lately.
Here’s some of what they would have learned - - - -
On Sept. 5 Gearino, a career journalist and author who spent many years at the N&O as business editor and a columnist, posted: “The curtain pulled aside.” It included the following - - -
It’s common for a top editor at the N&O to send out an inter-office note most days celebrating the high points of that morning’s paper (as well as occasionally pointing out a lapse). Among the staff, those notes prompt a daily exercise in something very close to Kremlinology, as they are pondered and studied for clues as to which way the management wind blows.
Below is the note that was distributed to the staff yesterday, reprinted here as I received it. I will make no comment, lest I sway your judgment on what it reveals about the people who oversee the most influential newspaper in the state. But feel free to share your thoughts.
A few comments on some good work in today’s paper:
–A lively front page that gave our readers plenty to talk about.
Has the political right truly turned the corner and will cease to demonize opponents on so-called moral issues, or are we witnessing the boldest, most cynical, most hypocritical political spin in modern history? What is one to make of John McCain’s greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America’s most famous baby mama with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described “f***ing redneck” baby daddy? Are we now celebrating teenagers’ raging hormones?
The claims department feature (see 8a) is a great reader service. I would like to see more scrutiny of the “facts” in Sarah Palin’s speech last night.
Now to our local politicians….Is Kenn Gardner just an inept liar or a man so greedy that he doesn’t care whether we think he’s an inept liar as long as he gets paid?
–A newsy and entertaining Triangle&Co. front.
I’d bet that Barry Saunders is hearing a lot of amens this morning as well as feeling a lot of hate. Good. A columnist should stir ‘em up. Much of America may have forgotten, but the black community has a very long memory of Republicans demonizing black unwed moms. The black wire–radio and a growing black blogesphere–is crackling this morning with wicked “Juno” jokes. In general, black bloggers (wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com. A warning to the easily offended, the name is a big clue) are having a great time with the GOP show in Minneapolis.
–Lots of interesting people stories in the sports section about college athletes and the pros. For those following tennis’ sibling rivalry, Serena has gained a slight lead by beating older sister Venus in the U.S. Open quarterfinals.
–Good, timely story–and an inviting headline (Life over breasts)– on the Life, etc. cover
Folks, Gearino’s post drew many comments on the thread which I encourage you to read as well as the comments on the threads of two Gearino follow-up posts I’ll link to further along in this post.
As for the ill-informed, disgustingly partisan email for a senior N&O editor, the paper made no comment in response to Gearino at his blog, at its own Editor’s Blog, or in its print edition.
On Sept. 11 Gearino posted: "Author, author." It included the following:
Let me clear up something: The internal memo sent out to the news staff of the Raleigh News & Observer, which I wrote about last week, was not authored by N&O editor John Drescher. Its author was Linda Williams, the senior editor for news. (I was one who misidentified Drescher as the author. I subsequently put an error alart and correction at my post and sent Drescher an email apologizing for my error. - - JinC)
It may come as a relief to some that an internal document so openly and unmistakably contemptuous of a major political party (the GOP, as if I have to tell you) wasn’t written by the top guy. If so, your sense of relief is misplaced. The N&O’s hierarchy has flattened a bit in recent years, but Williams could reasonably be said to be the No. 2 person in the newsroom. Don’t be deluded about this: The memo accurately and fairly reflects the attitudes of many of the newsroom’s managers and staff members. And I say that with the absolute confidence that comes with having read similar daily in-house memos for the 14 years I spent at the N&O.(emphasis added)...
Again, folks, there was nothing in response from the N&O although a number of readers were commenting about the matter at the Editors’ Blog.
On Sept. 15 Gearino posted: “This just gets better (and sadder).”
What follows here is the complete text of an email message I got from News & Observer senior editor Linda Williams, in the wake of two posts last week that brought into question the N&O’s public stance of non-partisanship. (You can see those previous posts here and here.) I publish Williams’ email at her urging, as you’ll see, and exactly as it was received.
What a sanctimonious, phony gasbag you are. Your recent posts are certainly revealing of your own utter lack of integrity. I recall an e-mail I received from you once in which you were praising me for a comment I made which you interpreted as being anti-liberal. I also recall that you sent that message to several people here at the paper.
Now you have seized upon a short commentary I made on how some of readers might discuss stories on our front page because of their own experiences to puff up your skinny little chest in outrage. Your interpretation was wrong then and it’s wrong now. But why the double standard?
I can only conclude that like so many of your ilk who cowardly rail from the safety of your keyboards that you have concluded that perpetuating the big lie is more lucrative.
I have absolutely no doubt that my professional integrity would hold up to any serious scrutiny of how I do my job. You’re shown during a series of inaccurate posts recently that you have no integrity, professional or otherwise.
Whether you choose to share this with your readers in its entirety will also shed light on your character.
( Folks, if you don't know the N&O, editor Williams ranting missives to the N&O's newsroom staff and Gearino may surprise you. My only surprise, and I suspect the only surprise of JinC Regulars and other intelligent people familiar with Williams and the N&O's newsroom "culture” is that the ranting missives were put in writing. - - JinC)
If it’s possible for something to be simultaneously both laughable and disheartening, this qualifies. It’s amusing because one rarely sees such unprofessionalism and over-the-top personal invective on display. (I’m considering having new business cards printed announcing my services as a “sanctimonious phony gasbag.”) It’s also funny to see someone who supervises a roomful of people sitting at computer monitors churning out copy by the minute express disgust with those who “rail from the safety of your keyboards.” You don’t encounter that kind of irony-laden cluelessness every day. . . .
But for all the amusement, it’s disheartening to realize that one of the top people at the state’s most influential newspaper doesn’t appear capable of forming a streamlined, logical response to an issue — much less understanding what actually unfolded last week.
The “interpretation” of Williams’ memo — which I printed without attaching any thoughts of my own about it, and also without identifying its author — came from other people who left comments on my site. Unanimously, they saw it for what it was: An unvarnished bit of snidely partisan opinion. The second post identified Williams as the author only because some readers had mistakenly concluded that the offending memo had been written by N&O editor John Drescher.
Folks, I'll be back saying more about all this tomorrow. Right now I just hope, if you're not already familiar with them, you follow the links to Gearino's posts and threads on which a number of journalists as well as thoughtful readers have commented.
Thanks to Gearino and others you have a chance to see the Raleigh N&O without its mask.
Raleigh N&O editor's blatantly partisan email (updated)
Posted by JWM at 1:27 PM
Monday, September 15, 2008
(One of a series of weekday posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)
Here are recollections of Sir Fitzroy Maclean, a British diplomat why held a number of posts during the 1930s and 40s. I’ll add a few words at the end.
[I served for almost three years as] Secretary of Embassy to Moscow, returning to London in the early summer of 1939 to take up an appointment at the Foreign Office. I hadn't been back long when I received an invitation to have lunch with Mr. Churchill at Chartwell, his home in the country. He wanted to hear about the Russians. War had by now come even nearer, and I found him more frustrated than ever by our own government's policy of appeasement.
He asked me whether I thought the Russians would come in on our side. This was in the summer of 1939. 1 replied that I was quite certain that they would not. In fact they were much more likely to come in on the other side.
At this Winston exploded. It was a large luncheon party and all at once I found myself a target for the full flood of Churchillian eloquence. If I couldn't count on Russian support, he said, and when, thanks to my fecklessness, we were totally unprepared for war ourselves, would I please tell him why I had guaranteed Poland and Rumania.
Why was I so calmly sending thousands of British boys to certain death in what was clearly a lost cause?
At 28 1 was even less articulate than I am now and it was an altogether alarming experience, but I was quite determined not to be blamed for a policy of which I disapproved every bit as strongly as he did, and with a formulation of which I had nothing whatever to do.
When I could get a word in edgewise, which was not easy, I replied that I had not been responsible for guaranteeing Poland or indeed Rumania, and had no wish whatever to send any British soldiers to their death.
But with the best,will in the world I didn't think that Marshal Stalin was likely to do something which he quite clearly regarded as contrary to his interest. "In that case," Winston replied ((why in heaven's name . . ." and off he went again.
I was thankful when luncheon came to an end and Mrs. Churchill took me for a walk in the garden.
When he said goodbye to me later, in the afternoon, Winston said he was sorry he'd been so explosive but he was desperately worried and frustrated at the way things were going. I said so was 1.
A month later, in gloomy confirmation of what I told him, came news of the Soviet-German pact, immediately followed by the outbreak of war.
The next time I met Winston was that same winter. By then he'd become First Lord of the Admiralty and I was asked to supper at Admiralty House, a prestigious 18th century building full of memories of British naval greatness. He looked 20 years younger. All his frustrations had disappeared at the prospect of action.
"Here," said Mrs. Churchill, "is Fitzroy. Do you remember how rude you were to him last time you saw him? What's more, he was right and you were absolutely wrong."
At which Winston gave a characteristic grunt and went off to run the war at sea, while Mrs. Churchill and I went off to the theatre together to see Vic Oliver, their new son-in-law.
Mrs. Churchill was one of the sweetest and most remarkable women I ever met, and all those years a marvelous wife to Winston, soothing him or bullying him as necessary and standing by him through thick and thin. …
Maclean’s entire recollections can be found here hosted by the Churchill Centre.
Maclean gives us a good sense of what the Churchill temper could be like; and how fortunate he was to have in Clementine a wife who admired and wanted him to succeed, and knew that standing up to him was in his best interests
Cathy Young in today’s WSJ - - --
Left-wing feminists have a hard time dealing with strong, successful conservative women in politics such as Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin seems to have truly unhinged more than a few, eliciting a stream of vicious, often misogynist invective.
On Salon.com last week, Cintra Wilson branded her a "Christian Stepford Wife" and a "Republican blow-up doll." Wendy Doniger, religion professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, added on the Washington Post blog2, "Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman."
You'd think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman's right to have a career and a family.
Yet some feminists unabashedly suggest that her decision to seek the vice presidency makes her a bad and selfish mother. Others argue that she is bad for working mothers because she's just too good at having it all.
In the Boston Globe on Friday3, columnist Ellen Goodman frets that Mrs. Palin is a "supermom" whose supporters "think a woman can have it all as long as she can do it all . . . by herself."
In fact, Sarah Palin is doing it with the help of her husband Todd, who is currently on leave from his job as an oil worker.
But Ms. Goodman's problem is that "she doesn't need anything from anyone outside the family. She isn't lobbying for, say, maternity leave, equal pay, or universal pre-K."
This also galls Katherine Marsh, writing in the latest issue of The New Republic4. Mrs. Palin admits to having "an incredible support system -- a husband with flexible jobs rather than a competing career . . . and a host of nearby grandparents, aunts, and uncles."
Yet, Ms. Marsh charges, she does not endorse government policies to help less-advantaged working mothers -- for instance, by promoting day-care centers. …
The rest of Young’s column’s here.
Many feminists are not only smearing Gov. Palin’s character, they’re misrepresenting her position on a number of public issues and government services.
But who’s surprised any longer by that. It’s all been happening since Sen. McCain selected her to be his VP running-mate.
BTW - Remember when Margaret Thatcher began her rise in Britain, the left and some on the right there dismissed her as “just a greengrocer’s daughter?”
Posted by JWM at 8:42 AM
A journalist friend alerts me to the liberal/leftist McClatchy News' five most read stories as of a while ago.
1. Hundreds gather for anti-Palin rally in downtown Anchorage
2. Out of bounds! Palin confuses Iraq with al Qaida
3. What's the truth about Sarah Palin, sportswoman?
4. Critics: Under Palin, Wasilla charged rape victims for exam
5. No wonder Gibson was confused by Palin's answer on global warming
With all the journalists in Alaska now looking for dirt on Gov. Palin, I'm surprised only hundreds showed up for the anti-Palin rally. Were any of those at the rally besides journalists some of the old-line political hacks Palin fired?
So Gibson's "confused by Palin's answer on glabal warming."
Gee, he got the God question (exact words) wrong and he got the Bush doctrine question wrong even after Palin tried to steer him right.
Now the global warming question!
In any case, who's surprised McClatchy's hosting Palin-bashing stories, some of which are "nothings" and some of which have been debunked?
And when will McClatchy tell us why Sen. Obama "never heard" Rev. Wright's racist, anti-American sermons and contributed tens of thousands of dollars to support Wright?
Posted by JWM at 7:50 AM
Sunday, September 14, 2008
There’s a joke about NY Times columnist Maureen Down being such a lightweight she’s next in line to succeed Pinch Sulzberger as Times publisher.
The follow-up: “That must be why she writes those columns that seem like she’s trying to convince everyone she knows more than Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman combined.” (That's not hard. - - JinC)
I thought of those one-liners today when I read Dowd’s column from “Anchorage” which Dowd let readers know is geographically proximate to Russia before telling them:
The proximity of the country from which William Seward bartered to buy Alaska for $7 million — Seward’s icebox — is so illuminating that I suddenly realize that we would commit a grave error by overestimating Russia’s economic strength.That all sounds like something that came from a Web site with a title like: A 1001 facts about Alaska and Russia for your term paper.
After all, it represents only 2.8 percent of the world’s G.D.P., even though its gross domestic product has ballooned from $200 billion in 1999 to $1.7 trillion this year.
Dowd goes on to misrepresent Palin on a number of issue and spout the knee=jerk lines smearing Gov. Palin.
I guess she’s going the extra mile to prove she’s ready to step in when Pinch is finally pushed out.
Dowd’s entire column’s here.
Posted by JWM at 7:51 PM
The Anything for Obama NY Times' editorial board is in full-throated cry trashing Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin. The Times'editors would have us believe the two are by turns dumb, dishonest and dangerous
So what else has the Times editorial board been doing for its readers?
Well, not too long ago it urged them to elect Eliot Spitzer Governor of New York. There was nothing new about the Times' enthusiatic support for Spitzer. It had supported him editorially for years.
Then Democrat Spitzer got caught in a prostitution scandal and had to resign his office.
There was also former New Jersey Democratic Governor Jim McGreevey, forced to resign his office when he got caught up in a sex scandal, part of which involved McGreevey's using taxpayer money meant for terrorist protection activities to give his gay lover a high-paying, basically no-show job.
The Times was a big supporter of McGreevey.
On the other hand, the Times thundered its opposition to the judicial appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samual Alito.
Neither man, according to the Times, was fit to hold the positions of public trust to which President Bush appointed them subject to the Senate's consent.
I wish the Times wasn't so loud and nasty in its editorial attacks on McCain and Palin. (I also wish there were fewer attacks on them in the Times' "news columns.")
But as someone planning to vote the McCain-Palin ticket, at least I can take the Times' opposition to them as a reassuring sign.
And, hey, that's without ever recalling the Times' consistant ridicule and denuncitation of President Reagan.
Posted by JWM at 3:51 PM
The other day I posted Not for the first time Washington Post distorts Palin. Now I want to tell you what happened after that. It doesn’t reflect well on WaPo’s Anything for Obama journalists.
Here’s my original post followed below the double star line by what happened next.
Bill Kristol at Weekly Standard Blog with my comments below the star line -
Kristol begins - - -
Here are the headline and the first two paragraphs from an article posted online that apparently will be on the front page of Friday’s Washington Post:
“Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush"
By Anne E. Kornblut Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008; A01
FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska, Sept. 11 -- Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
The idea that Iraq shared responsibility with al-Qaeda for the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin's statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday's anniversary.” . . .
Kristol continues - - -
Kornblut’s interpretation of what Palin said is either stupid or malicious.
Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks.
It makes no sense for Kornblut to claim that Palin is arguing here that Saddam Hussein’s regime carried out 9/11—obviously Palin isn’t saying that our soldiers are now going over to Iraq to fight Saddam’s regime.
Palin isn’t linking Saddam to 9/11. She’s linking al Qaeda in Iraq to al Qaeda....
The rest of Kristol’s post is here.
Folks, are any of you surprised at what Kristol reports WaPo do any of you not know most in WaPo’s newsroom, in in the tank for Obama and Kornblut is about as objective a reporter as Matt Cooper, Joe Klein and Elizabeth Bumiller.
So who’s surprised Kronblut and WaPo’s editors teamed up on something like what Kristol notes?
Kornblut and many in WaPo “newsroom” are as deep in the tank for Sen. Obama as Andrew Sullivan, Maureen Dowd and former Chicago journalist David Axelrod.
You all may be interested to read the following from one of those Q&A with “our top reporters” MSM newspapers host at their Web sites. It’s from Sept. 3. The “questioner” prattles about “Palin's own relentless cuts of any program that might possibly provide the slightest help to unwed teenage mothers.”
That of course is false and was debunked on day one when the MSM “smear Palin” crowd put it out there.
But notice that Obama supporter Kornblut says nothing to correct the “questioner“ error.
Why do you think that is?
Is WaPo and Obama’s Kornblut, as Kristol asks, “either stupid or malicious?”
Here's the relevant part of WaPo’s Sept. 3 Q&A which it tells readers is meant to “inform them.”
Arlington, Va.: I have two questions. First, why are we not hearing more about the hypocrisy inherent in Gov. Palin's stance on her daughter's pregnancy juxtaposed against the Republicans' (and Palin's own) relentless cuts of any program that might possibly provide the slightest help to unwed teenage mothers? Second, what's your take on a potential vice-presidential debate? I hardly watch any broadcast TV, but if there is going to be a vice presidential debate I'll be glued to the set just to see what Joe Biden does to Palin. My sense is it won't be a pretty sight.
washingtonpost.com: The Trail: Palin Slashed Funding for Teen Moms (washingtonpost.com, Sept. 2)
Anne E. Kornblut: Good questions, both. I think the point you raise about Palin's approach to programs for teen funding is one we addressed in today's paper-- Paul Kane, my colleague, has a good story on it. I'll see if I can find the link.
Obviously that's the kind of policy issue that is now relevant, and on the table, in a way that she will have to answer.
And on the VP debate. You and me both. It'll be a real sight to behold.
Case Western Reserve School of Law Professor Jonathan Adler tells us what happened next in a post at Volokh Conspiracy: THE POST "GETS A REWRITE (BUT DOESN'T TELL ITS READERS)"
On Friday, the Washington Post ran this story about Gov. Sarah Palin's speech before a brigade of soldiers bound for Iraq -- at least, that link is to the story that is on the Post's web page.
But this is not the story as it originally appeared.
As Bill Kristol notes here, the second paragraph of the story was rewritten -- and an entire sentence replaced -- to fix a gross error that dramatically distorted what Palin had said.
Most egregiously, there is no indication on the web-version of the story that it was corrected, not even a note at the end of the piece.
Whatever one thinks of the Post's reporting here, it should at least acknowledge that it changed the story's text to fix an error.
If we bloggers are expected to disclose substantive revisions to our blog posts, shouldn't the MSM be held to the same standard?
(end of Adler's post)
JinC commenting again:
You read what WaPo did and you’ve got to wonder who those 20 or so percent of the population are who pollsters tell us have a lot of trust in MSM newspapers.
Maybe they’re the Democratic base.
Be sure to follow Adler’s link to Kristol’s post which Bill updated, laying out so clearly WaPo’s slight of hand cover-up for one of its Obama reporter-supporters.
Posted by JWM at 3:41 PM
I want to respond to comments on the thread of last Wednesday’s post: McCain will carry N. C. by at least 10 points.
But first an update on poll results published after my post.
At Realclearpolitics.com (this page) you see results for and links to three polls of N.C. presidential voter preference. All three polls have McCanin ahead. ( +3, +4, and +17).
Now part or all of thread comments are in italics; my responses are in plain.
Anon @ 3:15 - -
John, I would agree with your assessment and the 10 point estimate.
I would expect BHO to mostly pull out as the election tightens. He needs to spend his money in VA, NM, NV and other states that might be in play for a red-to-blue switch.
Sen. Obama has so much money that, even if it’s clear by say mid-October , he doesn’t have a chance here, he’s likely to continue spending money in N.C. to, among other things, help Dem candidates further down the ballot.
If he had a realistic crack at NC, he would already be looking at a 400+ vote Electoral College win anyway.
The more interesting issue is the impact for [Democratic Gubernatorial candidate Beverly] Perdue and [Senatorial candidate Kay ] Hagan. They don't exactly want to hang around with The One if he comes to NC, but they would love to see him do well so they can get some down-ticket benefit.
Again, I agree
Anon @ 11:41 - -
My thoughts are you put up a great post and I can't wait to read more.
I appreciate your nice words.
I’ll have a second post up within a day or two. It will explain why I think Obama’s friend, terrorist Will Ayers, and Obama’s pastor and mentor of almost 20 years, the racist, anti-American Jeremiah Wright, will hurt Obama in N. C. more than in many other states.
I’ll also suggest how I think the GOP can help voters understand how enormously revealing Obama’s relationships with those two men is.
NeCle - -
John, if the 10% point margin is correct, then that should ensure that Ms. Dole trounces the Greensboro liberal. Ms. Hagan will be a reliable constituent of Senator Reid and vote the party line every time, guaranteed.
IMO you’ve put your finger on the most powerful argument Sen. Dole’s supporters can use: don’t send the liberal Hagen to Washington to work with all the other liberals already there.
Since she’s a sitting, Senator Dole needs to make the case for what she’s done and will continue to do. She can mention Hagen’s a liberal, but Dole needs to low-key that.
For Dole’s supporters, however, “Hagen’s a liberal like John Edwards turned out to be and she’ll vote with Sens. Reid and Kerry’ ought to be the default line.
As I said in my first post, one of the principal reasons Obama will lose N.C. is that Tar Heel voters – most of them anyway – don’t like to send liberals to Washington.
Thank you all for your comments.
Posted by JWM at 2:00 PM
Many bloggers, me included, have depended on Sitemeter for statistics and other services.
Sitemeter decided to go for “new and improved.” Last evening it began a “migration” which has confused, frustrated and impaired the work of many bloggers.
I’ve spent about 6 hours last night and this morning trying to set my services straight. Things still aren’t right.
Blogging has been delayed.
Ann Althouse says of Sitemeter:
This is the worst non-improvement of a website I've ever seen. "Seen" is an exaggeration. I feel like I can't even can't see the new charts. It is ugly and unreadable. The statistics were once so clear and sharply presented, featuring the information that was most useful to the blogger.You get the idea.
I was willing to pay $30 a month for the premium service. Now, premium service is only $6.95 a month, but I'll probably drop it, because I never want to lay eyes on that horrible website again.
I’m hearing the same and worse from other bloggers.
According to one Sitemeter “apparently they never saw fit to get one real fan to sit down and try to use it. Anyone would have told them it was a huge screw-up.”
I wonder whether Sitemeter are the same people who made Obama's "Can't send an email" ad.
Posted by JWM at 12:31 PM