Jan. 20, 1981: The 25th anniversary of President Reagan's first inauguration

Barry at Palmetto Pundit posts a wonderful tribute to President Ronald Reagan on the eve of the 25th anniversary of his first inauguration. I liked best the extensive quotes from Reagan's inaugural address. Here are a few of them:

The economic ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom.
...
From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?
...
We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ``We the people,'' this breed called Americans

Those words were spoken at a time when the "smart people" were telling us America's best days were behind it; and that we had just inaugurated an "amiable dunce."

Barry makes the case that Reagan is our greatest 20th century president. His post includes a very touching photo of Reagan.

The post is here.

Wal-Mart, George Will, a blogger and a pastor. And me, too.

One of my favorite bloggers, Betsy Newmark, posted on a George Will column. Betsy's post drew a comment from a reader, Paster Ray. I decided to respond to Ray.

Here first is the part of Betsy's post that drew Ray's comment:

George Will has a very powerful column today about how shoddy Maryland has been in their legislation against Wal-Mart. Every time I write about Wal-Mart I get some people in my comments section who have bought into the demonization of a company that has done more to help lower-income people than almost any other company in America.

Now Pastor Ray's entire comment:

"Every time I write about Wal-Mart I get some people in my comments section who have bought into the demonization of a company that has done more to help lower-income people..."(bold in Ray's comment)

At least Ms. Newmark has the historical savvy to offer us the apologetic that's been used to justify sweatshops since before Dickens.
Pastor Ray | 01.19.06 - 10:51 am | #

Now my response to Ray which I left on Betsy's comment thread.

Pastor Ray,

Dickens? Did you really read George Will's column? Do you know anything about Wal-Mart workers except what we all hear from “activists?”

Do you know that in the part of North Carolina where Betsy lives, a number of large, well-endowed, liberal oriented universities and churches compete with Wal-Mart for workers?

And can you guess why the Wal-Mart workers are there instead of at the universities and churches? That’s right, Wal-Mart made them the best offer.

Yes, some Wal-Mart employees complain they're not well treated so their lives are miserable. But don't some employees at Ben & Jerry's, the U.N., and National Public Radio say the same things?

Would you believe , Pastor Ray, that many Wal-Mart employees are regular savers. Some are saving to buy a house or a new car. Some will send a kid to college. Others are putting something aside for old age.

I've never met a Wal-Mart employee who complained of not having enough to eat. They have decent clothes. They have hobbies. They take vacations.

Dickens? That’s nonsense.

The Victorian author you and “activists” condemning Wal-Mart bring to mind is Anthony Trollope.

Have you ever read any of Trollope’s satires of the comfortable and smug “activists” of his day? They wanted to do everything for the poor except share their own material goods with them.

Some of Trollope’s books have been grouped into what’s called The Barchester Chronicles. They share a focus on hypercritical church connected “activists.”

My favorite is The Warden; but I love them all. They always get me smiling, sometimes even laughing out loud. I’m laughing right now just thinking about The Warden.

Pastor Ray, if you put down Dickens and pick up Trollope, you’ll find yourself transported from the 19th century to today.

And maybe you’ll be convinced to do nothing to interfere with the job opportunities of people who want to work at Wal-Mart.

Think about it.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

U. S. missile attack saves lives

The Associated Press is reporting today:

An al-Qaida explosives and chemical weapons expert and a relative of the terror network's No. 2 leader were among four top operatives believed killed in a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan last week, Pakistani security officials said Thursday.
...
The officials said the operatives included Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar, 52, who the U.S. Justice Department calls an explosives and poisons expert. The Egyptian also has distributed training manuals with recipes for chemical and biological weapons and trained hundreds of fighters at a terrorist camp near the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad before the ouster of the hardline Taliban regime in late 2001.

Umar is suspected of training the suicide bombers who killed 17 U.S. sailors in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, according to Mohamed Salah, a Cairo expert on Islamic extremists.

So terrorists who no doubt had already helped kill hundreds, maybe thousands, are likely dead; and can't carry out their plans to kill millions more. What great news!

It too bad some innocents also lost their lives in the attack. But if those monsters had lived, they would have killed many more innocents. America's critics never seem to care about that.

Final word: Thanks to everyone who helped make possible Umar and his pals' speedy flight to their meetings with all those virgins. Agents who arrange such trips are among my favorite people. They save so many lives.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 18, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In September 1943, American high school and college students knew that on the Russian front, Soviet and German soldiers their age were being killed, wounded or taken prisoners of war by the hundreds of thousands.

The students also knew that in the South Pacific, Americans they might soon join were fighting and dying side-by-side with Australian and other Allies against suicidal Japanese resistance.

Many of the students read the casualty lists the War Department released each day. Often they recognized names of friends they thought had been serving in Italy or with a bomber command or on a sub somewhere in the Atlantic. But the lists didn’t say much about where or with what units the dead, wounded and missing had been serving.

The students understood . Like everyone else, they didn’t want to read anything in the newspapers that might help the enemy.

It was before such students and to America’s youth that Churchill spoke at Harvard University on September 6, 1943:

"To the youth of America, as to the youth of all the Britains, I say, 'You cannot stop. It must be world anarchy or world order.

You will find in the British Commonwealth good comrades to whom you are united by other ties besides those of State policy and public need. Law, language, literature...common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice, and above all the love of personal freedom. These are common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-Speaking Peoples.

In 1943 British and American “common conceptions of what is right and decent” were under attack from without.

Today, they're under attack from within as well as without.
________________________________
The quote is referenced in many Churchill biographies.It can also be found in The Churchill Centre's Finest Hour. (Winter, 2000-2001) Go here and scroll down.

2005's most underreported story?

2005's most underreported story?


Besides progress in Iraq, it may have been the Egyptian massacre of Sudanese that occurred on December 30, says National Review’s Jay Nordlinger:

Egyptian police assaulted a crowd of Sudanese refugees, people who had already fled mass murder in their home country. Estimates vary on how many were killed, but it was a lot. For more information, you may wish to see the website of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, in Washington, D.C. They do a world of good work.

Reading about these events, I couldn't help thinking of the Sabra and Shatila massacres, in which "Christian" militias butchered Palestinian refugees. Israel was duly blamed. (As Prime Minister Begin remarked, "Goyim kill goyim, and they come to hang the Jews.") That story dominated the front pages for — what? Two years? It seems to me the wallpaper of my youth.

Of course, many more Palestinians were killed by their Lebanese foes than Sudanese were killed by the Egyptians, apparently. But you better believe that if any Israelis had been anywhere near the Sudanese bloodbath, this would not be an underreported story. This would be an over reported — and almost certainly wrongly reported! — story.

The story certainly deserved more attention then it received. And I agree with Nordlinger as far as how the media would have treated the story if Israelis had been involved. But I don’t think the story is the most underreported by a long shot.

My candidate for “most underreported story?”

The extraordinary skill and bravery of the world’s largest and best human rights and relief organization: America’s military.

How much did you hear about its work shielding billions of people from attack and death or enslavement? What would happen to all those Europeans who bash America if Muslim fundementalists knew America's military wasn't around? And what would happen to us?

How many of the year-end news reviews even bothered to mention the American military’s Tsunami relief work? Yet of all the world’s major relief agencies, our military was there first, delivering the most aid and taking on the toughest work.

We can never say thanks enough to our military and their families.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 17, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill._

Note to Regulars, Sorry I didn't post yesterday. It was the workload. John)

In 1975 there was fierce debate in Britain as to whether or not it should join the European Common Market.

Opponents of membership were supporting their arguments with, among other things, this Churchill quote: "Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea."

Churchill's grandson, Winston S. Churchill, then a member of Parliament wrote a letter to The Times of London providing context for his grandfather's words. I don't know enough about the Common Market membership issues to judge the letter in that regard but I think you'll find it interesting for what it tells us about the Churchill-de Gaulle relationship as D-Day approached.

The quote, Churchill's grandson wrote:

"is drawn from de Gaulle's version of a wartime row he had with Churchill, as is made clear by the very next sentence: 'And if I have to choose between you [de Gaulle] and Roosevelt, I shall always choose Roosevelt.'

The date was 1944 and the Europe referred to was dominated and occupied by Nazi Germany. It is not surprising that Churchill, on the eve of the Allied invasion, should make clear to de Gaulle that the U. S. alliance was more important to Britain than de Gaulle's forces.

Churchill was not referring to the European Economic Community, as it had not even been thought of at the time.

A more representative idea of his thoughts can be gained from his many speeches in the cause of European unity especially those at Zurich, The Hague, and in the Albert Hall in 1947, when he declared, 'If Europe united is to be a living force, Britain will have to play her full part as a member of the European family.'"

It should be remembered that when Churchill spoke in 1947 of British membership in the "European family," he had in mind a militarily powerful Europe which could not only protect itself but could project force, when necessary, to other parts of the world.

Today's Europe, excepting perhaps Britain, is militarily weak and not the Europe Churchill envisioned in 1947.
________________________________________________
Letter to The Times, Winston S. Churchill, MP, (Here at Churchill Centre. Scroll to Winter, 1975)

I'll beat The N&O on the Ted Kennedy Owl Club story

I'm so often wrong about ordinary day-to-day stuff that I almost never go out on a limb and make a prediction. But I will now.

The prediction? John in Carolina will "beat" Raleigh's News & Observer on the story about Sen. Ted Kennedy's current and long-standing membership in an exclusive private organization that bars women from membership.

In fact, I'll go further. I'll publish on Kennedy and his Owl Club membership at least a full day before The N&O.

How can I be so sure? Well, the story has been out on the net since January 13. Friends say reporters and editors at The N&O know about it. But they haven't published it. That means they and their owners, The McClatchy Company, don't want to publish the story.

So it won't be hard to beat The N&O.

I'd like to wager with you, but you're all too smart to bet against me.

See you tomorrow.

At the library today

At the library today, I stood second in the checkout line, with a women ahead of me. In front of us at the counter were a mother and young child.

The mother was passing books to the child, who in turn passed them to the Liberian for scanning, after which the Liberian gave them back to the child who then put the books in a carrying sack.

The mother sometimes stopped and told the child to "Look at the Liberian" or "Say, 'thank you.'"

At one point, the mother turned to the women ahead of me and said, “I’m sorry to be holding you up.”

“No, please, I was just enjoying it,” the woman replied. “It’s so nice to see a parent teaching children manners.”

A second later both women looked at me. I smiled and nodded.

N&O propaganda and Chronicle reporting

Yesterday, I posted on The Raleigh News & Observer’s Jan. 16 front page story, Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice, which concerned Sunday's Dr. King commemoration event at Duke University Chapel. The principal speaker was singer and activist Harry Belafonte. My post explained why The N&O's story is an anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda piece.

I wish when I wrote that post I had a copy of the story of the event that ran in the Duke student newspaper, The Chronicle. I could have made my point about N&O propaganda by comparing The Chronicle and N&O stories.

Well, better late than never. Here goes. (N&O portions are in bold; Chronicle portions in italics.)

First, the headlines –

N&O - Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice

Chronicle - Activist lauds King, decries Bush

Describing Belafonte -

N&O - He's an “(e)entertainer and human-rights activist.”

Chronicle - He's a “controversial musician, actor and activist”

Both stories are similar in their summaries and quotes of Belafonte’s remarks about President Bush being a "terrorist," the war in Iraq, and the moral equivalence between the 9/11 attackers and American policies.

But there are differences in how the stories report the circumstance in which Belafonte called the President "the greatest terrorist in the world."

N&O - Standing next to Hugo Chavez, that country's socialist leader, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."

Chronicle - Belafonte previously had called Bush “the greatest terrorist in the world” during a Jan. 8 speech in Venezuela, setting off a firestorm of criticism.

About Belafonte's long history of support for leftist tyrants -

No - Silence

Chronicle - A student is quoted: “Belafonte claims to be a champion of human rights, yet he embraces tyrants, for example, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, who often brutally deny their citizens of the most basic human rights”

About racist remarks Belafonte has made about former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -

Both stories are silent.

Did anyone disagree with anything Belafonte said?

N&O - No mention that anyone disagreed with anything Belafonte said.

Chronicle - “But not everyone agreed.”

N&O - No mention that tens of millions of Americans find Belafonte's attacks on the President wrong, reckless, and perhaps a threat to his safety.

Chronicle - Although most of the audience expressed agreement with Belafonte’s views, (a conservative student leader) said the crowd was not a true representation of Americans.

“Most Americans would not cheer when George W. Bush, their President, is compared to the 9/11 hijackers and Operation Iraqi Freedom is compared to hijacking a jet and flying it into a building,” he said.You'll see more differences if you read both The Chronicle and N&O stories.

I think you'll agree The N&O's story is anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda. If you're not sure about that, please take another look my post, Belafonte and The Raleigh N & O's propaganda. It has much more analysis and discussion of The N&O's "Fiery Belafonte" piece than I've provided here.

You can read The Chronicle story here; The N&O story is here.

Belafonte and The Raleigh N & O's propaganda

While al- Jazeera and left-wing European newspapers regularly provide anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda, Raleigh's News & Observer, a McClatchy Co. paper, has for years offered readers only the Bush-bashing kind. But today, Jan. 16, it ran a story containing both anti-American and Bush-bashing propaganda.

The story's front page and headlined: "Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice." Written by reporter Michael Beisecker, it begins:

Entertainer and human-rights activist Harry Belafonte said Sunday that there is moral equivalence between the actions of the Sept. 11 hijackers and the American-launched war in Iraq.

"Killing is our easiest tool," Belafonte said, addressing about 1,800 people packed in the cavernous gothic chapel at Duke University for a commemoration honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "When you have a president that has led us into a dishonorable war, who has killed tens of thousands, many of them our own sons and daughters, what is the difference between those who would fly airplanes into buildings, killing 3,000 innocent Americans? ... What is the difference between that terror and other terrors?" (Ellipse in N&O story)
...
Belafonte's appearance at Duke, a private university that once closed its doors to blacks, came little more than a week after comments he made on a trip to Venezuela grabbed national headlines. Standing next to Hugo Chavez, that country's socialist leader, Belafonte called Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world."
...
"When Katrina happened, this great tragedy, and our people called out in misery and fear, our government didn't respond," Belafonte said. He then recounted how the Venezuelan president offered to send doctors and low-cost heating oil to help America's poor -- an offer, Belafonte said, that was "arrogantly dismissed" by President Bush.

The rest of the story is in a similar vein.

Like any propaganda story, The N&O's "works" because relevant facts and context are unreported while falsehoods are presented as if true.

For example, The N&O doesn't mention Belafonte's enthusiastic support of brutal leftist dictators. In the 1980's Belafonte praised the Soviet and East German regimes. He's a friend of Castro. The N&O's "socialist leader" Chavez is only the latest leftist thug Belafonte's embraced.

The N&O knows if it mantions any of that, most readers wouldn't be fooled into thinking Belafonte is a "human-right activist." Its story would start falling apart.

The N&O knows Belafonte has made racist remarks. About then Secretary of State Colin Powell, Belafonte said, “When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Belafonte has said, is “like a Jew . . . doing things that were anti-Semitic and against the best interests of her people.”

Most newspaper reporters and editors would find it very relevant, and certainly ironic, that the principal speaker at an event honoring Dr. King's life made racist remarks about two great Americans. They'd make sure their readers knew about it.

But propagandists pitching a "Fiery Belafonte focuses on injustice" story would do just the opposite. They'd make sure the story said nothing about racist remarks. That's what The N&O did.

The N&O's story doesn't contain a single word indicating tens of millions of Americans find Belafonte's remarks about President Bush wrong, inflamatory, and possibly a threat to his safety.

The N&O never mentions that Belafonte's equating the terrorists acts of 9/11 with American policies has been challenged and refuted. Instead, The N&O reports Belafonte's "moral equivelence" charge the same way al-Jazeera reports it when others who hate America make it.

The N&O is silent about the enormous Katrina rescue and relief activities of our government and individual Americans. It’s silent about false MSM reports claiming minorities were discriminated against during and after Katrina.

The N&O’s silence on those matters enables it to "report" Belafonte's falsehood - "When Katrina happened, this great tragedy, and our people called out in misery and fear, our government didn't respond." - as if it were true.

And that's exactly how all anti-American propagandists "report" Katrina: Nothing about rescue and aid that we now know was nondiscriminatory. Just say there was a huge storm; poor black people cried out; and Bush and rich, white America ignored them.
___________________________________________________________________

Dear Readers,

I’ve tried hard to find a good ending for this post, but I’m stumped.

Over the years I’ve seen some pretty bad stuff in The N&O, but today’s story is among the worst.

It reads like a press release from the “Bush = Hitler” and “America deserved it” people.

I don’t know why The McClatchy Co. seems determined to drive The N&O further left.

I’d love to hear what you think.

I’ll be back tomorrow. We’re not giving up.

John

Green house gasbags and Noth Carolina

What do green house gasbags and the old Tar Heel state have to do with one another?

To find out, read Daniel Akst's opinion piece in the Jan. 13 Wall Street Journal. It begins:

In North Carolina, the owners of a 4,600-square-foot home that cost $1.2 million wanted it to be as "green" as possible, so they spent $120,000 on solar power.

In Colorado, using recycled materials, an architecture professor built a 4,700-square-foot home that uses geothermal heating and cooling and was on the market recently for $930,000.

And in Southern California, a husband-and-wife architect team who say that they "came of age during the '60s and '70s at U.C. Berkeley" also relied on recycled materials -- in building a second home six hours from their primary residence.
...
The question, of course, is what on earth are all these people thinking? How "green" can huge and, in many cases, isolated houses be? Wouldn't it be better to risk traumatizing the children by squeezing into a 3,000-square-foot home, especially one close to shopping, schools and work?

How many less affluent, less guilt-ridden Americans can afford to build such environmental show houses?

These houses aren't just ridiculous; they're monuments to sanctimony. If architecture is frozen music, these places are congealed piety, demonstrating with embarrassing concreteness the glaring hypocrisy of upper-class environmentalism.

Good for Akst for saying all that. We hear so much from "environmentalists" like Sens. Kerry and Kennedy, who between them own 9 very large homes (or is it 10?), that we're apt to forget the hypocrisy of so many "environmentalists."

Now, what does Akst have for people seriously concerned about the environment?

Plenty, including this:

Homeowners (can save energy with) high-efficiency appliances, stingy heating and cooling, and advanced windows with energy-saving coatings and argon gas between the panes.

Computerized thermostats, compact fluorescent bulbs and fuel-efficient cars also make sense, whether your goal is to save money, save the planet or reduce our dependence on imported oil, with all its geopolitical consequences.

There's more. Read it all here.

Contact information for North Carolina House Republicans

When I joined with other center-right bloggers and signed the statement on the U. S. House Republican leadership election, I said I'd provide contact information for North Carolina Republican House members.

If you're represented by a House member linked below, you can obtain phone, fax and email information for your representative by clicking on the member's name.

If you’re not sure of your representative's name, call your board of elections or local library.

Many of you want to make your voices heard on the Republican U.S. House leadership elections. Here's your chance.

Coble, Howard -- Dist. 6

Foxx, Virginia -- Dist. 5

Hayes, Robert C. -- Dist. 8

Jones, Walter B. -- Dist. 3

McHenry, Patrick -- Dist. 10

Myrick, Sue Wilkins -- Dist. 9

Taylor, Charles H. -- Dist. 11

Washington Post editorial: "Confirm Samual Alito"

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination were a disaster for Senate Democrats and their interest group allies.

That crowd did so badly the British magazine, The Economist, couldn’t resist placing above its hearings report the headline: “The brainbox and the blowhards.”

Now comes more bad news for the anti-Alito crowd: today's Washington Post lead editorial, “Confirm Samuel Alito.”

The Post says Alito would not have been “our pick for the high court:”

Yet Judge Alito should be confirmed, both because of his positive qualities as an appellate judge and because of the dangerous precedent his rejection would set.

The Post mentions disagreements it has with some of Alito’s rulings and judicial philosophy, but it makes clear it views Supreme Court nominations within the framework of Constitutional government:

A Supreme Court nomination isn't a forum to refight a presidential election. The president's choice is due deference -- the same deference that Democratic senators would expect a Republican Senate to accord the well-qualified nominee of a Democratic president.

Give due deference to presidential nominations. Does anyone think Senators like Kennedy, Schumer, Durbin, Leahy, and Biden will be able to do that as long as there’s a Republican in the White House?

The Post takes up the Democrats and interest groups charges that Alito is "outside the mainstream," "a racist and anti-women," etc., etc.:

And Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires. His colleagues of all stripes speak highly of him. His integrity, notwithstanding efforts to smear him, remains unimpeached.

The Post ends by reminding us of the consequences if we follow the Democratic Party and its interest groups down the path of politically driven nomination fights.

Supreme Court confirmations have never been free of politics, but neither has their history generally been one of party-line votes or of ideology as the determinative factor. To go down that road is to believe that there exists a Democratic law and a Republican law -- which is repugnant to the ideal of the rule of law. However one reasonably defines the "mainstream" of contemporary jurisprudence, Judge Alito's work lies within it.

While we harbor some anxiety about the direction he may push the court, we would be more alarmed at the long-term implications of denying him a seat. No president should be denied the prerogative of putting a person as qualified as Judge Alito on the Supreme Court.

I hope you read the entire editorial.

It's refreshing to read an editorial that's informed, fair-minded, and an important reminder of how we should treat judicial nominations.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 14, 2006

(One of a series of posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was September 1919. British troops, along with those of other nations, were fighting in Russia. They were attempting to help the Czar armies (The Whites) defeat the Bolshevik armies (The Reds) led by Lenin and Trotsky.

Many in Britain opposed using troops in Russia and demanded they be brought home. They said British troops were fighting the Czar's battle.

Churchill response to those people contained an analysis and prophesy

"It is a delusion to suppose that all this year we have been fighting the battles of the anti-Bolshevik Russians. On the contrary, they have been fighting ours; and this truth will become painfully apparent from the moment that they are exterminated and the Bolshevik armies are supreme over the whole vast territories of the Russian Empire."

________________________________________________
Quote cited in Finest Hour's (Summer, 2003) review of David Carlton's "Churchill and the Soviet Union." (Here and scroll down)

Body armor: Why soldiers are saying "no more."

Here's part of military analyst Andrew Exum's op-ed in today’s New York Times:

From 2000 until 2004, I was an infantry officer in the Army. I deployed with a light-infantry platoon to Afghanistan in 2002, then with a platoon of Army Rangers to Iraq in 2003 and back to Afghanistan in 2004.

While I can testify that soldiers usually appreciate the protection body armor gives them, the load shouldered by the average infantryman often hinders his ability to fight - especially at high altitude as in Afghanistan.

But in Iraq, as well, the "soldier's load" is often unbearable. Most studies recommend that a soldier should not be burdened with more than one-third of his body weight. But if you take a 160-pound soldier and put 40 pounds of Kevlar and body armor on him and then he picks up an automatic weapon, ammunition, water and first aid equipment, it's not long before he is carrying half his body weight - and he is then expected to run, jump and fight insurgents, themselves carrying little more than a 10-pound AK-47. All of this, of course, often takes place in 120-degree heat in the cities of Iraq.

Lost among the politicians' cries for more extensive armor for the troops is the fact that most soldiers, in my experience and based on discussions with many, feel they have enough armor already - and many feel they are increasingly being burdened with too much equipment.

Exum is saying what most soldiers now in Iraq seem to be saying: they have enough body armor. More will only make their service more dangerous while giving the enemy important advantages. It all has to do with speed, accuracy and exposure to enemy fire.

If that seems hard to understand, imagine you're a soldier in Iraq.

Your armored vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. You managed to climb out a second or two before it was engulfed in flames. Carrying 30 extra pounds, you’d never have made it.

Yesterday, you were able to quickly shoulder your weapon and fire a split second before your enemy could. You lived; he died.

For accuracy, your shoulder-fired weapon must be held very steady. That’s tough to do, especially in combat. You know it’s going to get a lot tougher if Congress and the Pentagon decide you need to hang another 5 or 6 pounds of armor on each arm. Why can't folks back home understand that?

When you move from place to place in the open, speed is one of your best protections. It doesn't just limit the time the enemy has a clear shot at you; it limits the time he has to observe where you're going and cell-phone to others who then have some seconds to site their weapons on the corner they know you're about to turn. This time, the enemy will fire first. So he may live; and you may die.

If we can imagine some of what troops in combat face,it shouldn't be hard to understand why so many of them in Iraq are reluctant to put on more body armor.

But Senator Hillary Clinton seems to want to weigh them down with more armor.

Here's some advice for Senator Clinton: You want to be the soldiers' next Commander-in-Chief. Then listen to them when they speak about body armor.

Your deciding about body armor makes as much sense as my telling you how to organize a Hollywood fundraiser.

But if you feel you must decide about body armor, please first wear 30 pounds of it for a few weeks.

Hat tip and trackback: Michelle Malkin

Statement of House Republican leadership election

The Truth Laid Bare got it going.

Now, I'm one of many center-right bloggers who've signed the following joint statement on the House Republican leadership election:

-----

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue influence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.
************************************************************************

Learn more about it.

Here's a list of blogger signing so far (Courtesy of Truth Laid Bare):

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd / DJ Drummond , Polipundit
Beth Cleaver, MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Jeff Goldstein, Protein Wisdom
Stephen Green, Vodkapundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
The Anchoress, The Anchoress
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Follow ups:

Pass the word to other bloggers.

Here in the North Carolina, let's get Republican House members on the record.

I'll post contact info for them tomorrow.

I'll keep you posted on anything I learn about what Tar Heel House Rs are planning.

And you all please keep me posted.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 13, 2006

(One of a series of daily post on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was August, 1950. The Prime Minister’s office was held by Clement Atlee. The Leader of the Opposition was Churchill, then age 75. He was spending August at Chartwell, his home in Kent, about an hour's drive from London.

At Scotland Yard that same August Detective Constable Edmund Murray, age 33 and a former member of the Irish Guards who’d served with both the French resistance and British intelligence, was ordered to complete all his outstanding case reports. He knew that meant an assignment change.

Murray was told he would now be part of Churchill’s protection detail. He tells us what happened next (British spellings):

I travelled by police car from Scotland Yard down to Chartwell. As I got out of the car I looked towards the half-open, substantial front door of the manor. (It looks as if it were made of solid English oak but is really ordinary pinewood and was designed by Churchill himself.)

In the hallway beyond I could see what appeared to be an immense figure, sitting on a red leather-covered bench.

I approached and recognised the most recognisable figure in the whole world. He was wearing a silver-grey Stetson hat and royal-blue velvet bedroom slippers initialed "WSC" on their fronts in gold thread. He was wearing his siren suit, as he called it, which he had perfected during the war years.

It was just a glamourised boiler suit, really, made in one piece more or less, with a zip fastener down the front. Occasionally when I was waiting for him to dress, I would hear a roar, and would know that he was having trouble with his zip fastener.

The Leader of the Opposition removed the cigar from his mouth with his left hand and offered me his right hand. As I took it I noticed its beauty: smooth and pink, unsullied by the liver spots that were to invade his hands sporadically in later years; with impeccable nails, one of which, that of the little finger of his right hand, was kept about a quarter of an inch long and well pointed. This existed for no unhygienic reason, but to be introduced into the end of any cigar that he took from the box in order to extract it without any damage to the object he loved so much.

I didn't know about Murray until a few days ago. How about you?

I want to learn more about this detective with such a fine eye for detail.
_____________________________________________
Edmund Murray, "The Churchill I Knew." Proceedings
of the International Churchill Societies 1992-93.

The brainbox and the blowhards

"The brainbox and the blowhards"

You knew it was about Alito v. Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Biden, Leahy et al; and you're right.

But did you think the post title was mine?

I wish it was but it's the British magazine, The Economist, headline for its Alito hearings story.

It sure tells us a lot about how the committee hearings turned out.

And will you look at how The Economist begins its report:

TED KENNEDY is deeply troubled by the ethics of the Supreme Court nominee. Between 2001 and 2006, Samuel Alito, who is currently an appeals court judge, accepted $7,684,423 in “donations” from special interests who perhaps wanted the law tweaked in their favour. That included $28,000 from defence contractors, $42,200 from drug firms and a whopping $745,373 from lawyers and law firms.

No, wait. Those are Senator Kennedy's conflicts of interest—or, rather, a brief excerpt from a long list compiled by the Centre for Responsive Politics.

You can read the entire article here.

One point the political left and right can agree on: Sens. Kennedy, Schumer, Leahy, Biden, et al are excellent representatives of their party.

The Times can't admit it has an Alito litmus test

I suppose the New York Times will continue telling us it believes Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito should be judged in terms of his fitness to interpret the Constitution and the law.

But an editorial today leaves no doubt the Times views the Alito nomination as all about one big litmus test: Will Alito, if confirmed, rule to uphold Roe v. Wade?

The Times doesn't say that, but it begins with:

There are many reasons to be concerned about the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court, but for a small group of moderate Republicans who strongly identify themselves as supporters of abortion rights, there is a special problem: if Judge Alito gets to the court, there is every reason to believe that he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity comes.

And it ends with:

The single most important thing a senator can do to support abortion rights is to vote against Supreme Court nominees who would take such rights away. Given Judge Alito's record and his testimony, it is hard to see how Senators Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins - or any other pro-choice senators - can call themselves strong advocates of abortion rights if they support him.

Everything in between is about how the Times thinks Alito would rule on Roe v. Wade.

Many advocacy groups admit they use litmus tests for judicial nominees. Why can't the Times admit that, too? Because it fears the public backlash that would surely follow.

Under the American justice system judges are supposed to decide only after they've heard all the arguments during a judicial process. If we demand judges tell us how they'll decide cases before they're heard, we'll be like countries where you know a judges decision before the trial begins.

Most Americans don't want that to happen here. Our distrust on MSM news organizations will only grow if newspapers such as the Times begin admintting they advocate litmus tests for judges. So the Times won't admit it has one for Alito anymore than it will admit its news selection and reporting are influenced by liberal bias.

The Chruchill Series - Jan. 12, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the live of Winston S. Churchill.)

In June 1942 Churchill visited the United States for the second time since Pearl Harbor. After a series of discussions and an inspection of American troops training in South Carolina, he traveled to Baltimore to meet a flying boat which would take him and his party back to England. President Roosevelt sent his top aide, Harry Hopkins to see them off.

As the flying boat prepared to taxi for takeoff, a struggle was taking place at the end of a nearby pier. Two FBI agents had tackled a man and were wrestling a gun from his hand as he shouted, "I'm going to kill Churchill."

The man was later judged to be insane.

When Churchill learned of the incident he took note of the fact the man had placed himself in the open at the end of a pier: "crackpots are a special danger to public men, as they don't worry about the 'getaway.'"
_______________________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard. (p. 139)

Remember Sen. Leahy's attack on Judge Bork?

Today at NRO I found Jay Nordlinger's article, The ‘Nastiest’ Democrat," which first appeared in National Review's July 9, 2001 issue.

And no, Nordlinger wasn't writing about Massachusetts’ "liberal lion." His "nastiest" was Vermont’s Sen. Patrick Leahy.

Here's Nordlinger on Leahy's conduct during Judge Bork’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings :

(Leahy) was a major tormentor of Robert Bork during those awful hearings of 1987. In fact, he was responsible for one of their moments of highest drama. He scolded Bork for doing insufficient charity work while a professor at Yale, and recited the fees he earned as an outside consultant during the years 1979 to 1981.

Responded Bork, "Those are the only years I ever made any money in consulting." He continued, emotional, "There was a reason to get money, and I don't want to get into it here." Leahy acknowledged that the judge had his reasons.

Then Sen. Gordon Humphrey, a Republican, broke in, saying, "Judge Bork, this is a very personal question, and if you prefer not to answer it, by all means do not — but were those years [ones that] coincided with heavy medical bills in your family?"

Bork spoke one syllable: "Yeah."

The bills to which Humphrey had referred were for Bork's first wife, Claire, who died in December 1980. This was not only a moment of high drama, but one that turned the stomachs of many of those watching.

Many of us have forgotten how Leahy disclosed that day just what sort of Senator he is.

Nordlinger has a lot more to say about Leahy, all of it worth reading.

It's too bad MSM news organizations won't remind us of Leahy's shameful conduct at least as often as they remind us Vice-president Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato."

The Churchill Series - Jan. 11, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Churchill's father, Lord Randolph, almost always treated him harshly. For his part, Churchill did all he could to please his father, the hero of his youth whom he continued to revere all his life.

Below are portions of two letters father and son exchanged. They illustrate what I'm saying.

At the time Churchill was 19 and a cadet at Sandhurst. Lord Randolph had given him a gold watch; and later learned from the watchmaker, Mr. Dent, that it had twice been damaged while in Churchill's care. That prompted Lord Randolph's letter. The "Jack" Lord Randolph mentions is his son and Winston's younger brother.

21 April 1894

Dear Winston,
...
(Mr. Dent) told me (you had) with the utmost carelessness dropped it on a stone pavement & broken it badly.

(After repairs) Dent again received the watch and you told him it had been dropped in the water. He told me the whole of the works were horribly rusty.

I would not believe you would be such a young stupid. It is clear you are not to be trusted with a valuable watch & when I get it back from Mr. Dent I shall not give it back to you.
...
Jack has had the watch I gave him longer that you have had yours; the only expenses I have paid on his watch was 10/s for cleaning before he went back to Harrow.

(In) all qualities of steadiness taking care of his things & never doing stupid things Jack is vastly your superior.

Your very much worried parent,

Randolph S. Churchill

_____________________________________________

Churchill replied the next day. His letter includes lengthy explanations of the circumstances in which the watch was damaged and what he did to set matters right. Here's what he told Lord Randolph about dropping the watch "in the water."

I placed the watch ...in my breast pocket - not having with uniform a waistcoat to put it in - and while walking along the Wish Stream I stooped down to puck up a stick and it fell out of my pocket into the only deep place for miles.

The stream was only about 5 inches deep - but the watch fell into a pool nearly 6 feet deep.

I at once took off my clothes and I dived for it but the bottom was so uneven and the water so cold that I could not stay in longer than 10 minutes and had to give it up.

The next day I had the pool dredged - but without result. On Tuesday therefore I obtained permission from the Governor to do anything I could provided I paid for having it all put straight again.

I then borrowed 23 men from the Infantry Detachment - dug a new course for the stream - obtained the fire engine and pumped the pool dry and so recovered the watch.

I tell you all this to show you that I appreciated fully the value of the watch and that I did not treat the accident in a casual way. The labour of the men cost me over (three pounds).
...
I am sorry to have written you such a long and stupid letter, but I do hope you will take it in some measure as an explanation.

With best love
I remain ever your loving son
Winston S. Churchill

Nothing Churchill did impressed Lord Randolph. To the end of his life he predicted his oldest son would be a failure and an embarrassment to the family name.

Sad.
____________________________________________________________________
Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: Youth (pgs. 209-213)

Open Newmark's Door and look what you find.

Craig Newmark at Newmark's Door is constantly posting "shorties" that lead us to important information we don’t often find in MSM.

Here's one of today's "shorties":

Michael Barone writes that we can understand why the pessimists were wrong about the American economy 25 years ago by looking at the fall of GM and the rise of Wal-Mart.

Follow the link to Barone's column and you'll read:

The American economy continues to surge ahead, though you won't read much about it in mainstream media. Economic growth in the third quarter was 4.1 percent--despite Hurricane Katrina!--the 10th consecutive quarter with growth over 3 percent. Unemployment is 5.0 percent--lower than the average for the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s. Since April 2003 the economy has created a net 5.1 million new jobs.
Core inflation is only 2.1 percent, and gas prices, which surged above $3 a gallon after Katrina, are now down around $2. Productivity growth for the five-year period of 2000-2005 is 3.4 percent, the highest of any five-year period in 50 years.

This is a remarkable performance and owes something surely to the Bush tax cuts and to Alan Greenspan's stewardship at the Federal Reserve. But it also tells us something broader about the American economy. Mainstream media coverage about the economy tends to be full of bad news, especially during Republican administrations, and to focus on economic problems.

Barone has a lot more to say, including his thoughts regarding why GM fell as Wal-Mart rose. You can read it here.

And don't forget to keep knocking on Newmark's Door.

The Churchill Series - Jan 10, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

By the time of the 1906 General Election, Churchill had left his Commons seat on the Conservative side and crossed over to the Liberals. Mostly it had to do with free trade. He was a staunch free-trader.

In the election, the Liberals offered Churchill a chance to run for a seat in Manchester held by a Conservative.

The race was seen as a tough go for him. The Conservative and Labour candidates were strong opponents.

And than there was the matter of many people just not trusting a man who had crossed the aisle. Could you believe anything a turncoat said?

To take advantage of this distrust, the Conservatives decided to distribute a pamphlet filled with quotes Churchill had made while in their ranks.

Let the public challenge him on what he'd once said. That would do him in.

They planned the first distribution for early on the night Churchill was to address a large crowd in a theater he had rented. Put the pamphlet in the hands of the people going in, run a few paid hecklers and some good party men in amongst the crowd, and then shout and hoot Churchill down with his own words.

It seemed like a good plan and everything was in place as Churchill walked onto the stage to a mix of cheers, boos, and a lot of pamphlet waving amidst cries of "Do you deny this?"

Churchill started his formal remarks but the pamphlet waving and cries of "Do you deny this?" threatened to drown him out.

Churchill paused.

Then he drew from his pocket a copy of the pamphlet he's obtained a few hours earlier. "What page should I look on," he asked?

He read for a moment; looked up; and admitted he's said what was on the page. Hoots!

And the other page? He asked for a little quiet while he read.

It was true, too. In fact, as he glanced through the pamphlet, everything he read was something he had said.

He had no quarrel with the people who'd put the pamphlet together. They had told the truth. Indeed, he'd said "all those stupid things."

He seemed to grow angry with himself and started tearing out pages, crumpling some and tossing others over his shoulder all the while repeating, "stupid," "stupid."

Finally, with no more pamphlet left, Churchill thundered to the crowd, "Yes, I said all those stupid things because I was then a member of a stupid party but I left that party and joined one that...."

Much cheering, and the night was his.

On election night, as the British would put it, "Churchill came first."
_______________________________________________________
Many biographers have recorded the pamphlet episode. See, for example, Violet Bonham Carter, Winston Churchill: An Intimate Portrait. (pgs. 100 - 103)

More on The N&O's Sago mine reporting

At Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden's blog there are currently two comments concerning his Sunday, Jan. 8, column. That's the column in which he tells readers he "can't find fault" with The N&O for its botched, front page Jan. 4 "miners found alive" story.

How do you think that want down in the newsroom and executive offices in Raleigh, and at parent company McClatchy's California exec suites?

We really needn't pause, do we?

So moving right along ---

One of the two comments is quite critical of The N&O (No, it's not mine).

The other is very supportive of The N&O (That's not mine, either).

I've copied and pasted the entire supportive comment below.

After the comment, I ask some questions and make a few remarks.

I plan to use my questions and remarks as a basis for both a comment at Vaden's blog and a post here tomorrow.

If you are new to this story, stay with it. Search back through archives of the last seven days. News is developing all the time.

Example: Before today, how many N&O readers knew that its executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, and Vaden had explained nothing to readers about The N&O's other mine story on Jan. 4?

You'll read about that story and find a reference to it in my remarks.

Now the supportive comment made at Vaden's blog:
____________

Comment from: Ted at State [Visitor]
01/10/06 at 14:24

Does everything have to be about the N & O's presumed liberal bias? Let's look at the facts:

* The rescuers were given a code phrase if they found them dead and another if they found them alive. No one had the foresight to create one if some were dead and others alive.

* Communications in a mineshaft is pretty bad. I can't get my cell phone to work half the time when I'm in my office, much less 3 miles into a mine (and 250 feet below ground).

* The rescue team was focused on rescue. They heard moaning, so someone was alive. Unfortunately, it was only one person.

The N&O went with everyone else and published the story. They blew it, but not as much as the company withholding the correct information. The N&O hopefully will use this as an opportunity to improve.

Now, as to the comparison to Bush's team and WMD, I really don't see the connection. Rather than a miscommunication over a very short period of time, the WMD conclusion involved selectively reading intelligence reports over several months. The administration decided the outcome, and chose to use or ignore intelligence based on how it supported the outcome.

Calling the N&O liberal is really laughable. You should read some papers that ARE liberal or even progressive. The N&O seems somewhat to the right of the middle, and some of their editorial writers (such as Martinez) seem to be trying to get an invitation to appear on The O'Reilly Factor.
***************************************************************

Now some JinC remarks:

Comments to Ted at State ---

What company withheld “the correct information ?” Provide a name and a few facts.

Have you told N&O exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, and public editor, Ted Vaden, that a “company” withheld the “correct information?”

Do you know anything about The N&O's other Jan. 4 mine story?

It’s the two-column story that ran at least in The N&O’s West and Final editions on the same day The N&O reported the miners had been found alive.

The N&O’s other Jan. 4 mine story ran on pg. 10A beside the inside portion of its front page “found alive” story.

It begins, "Even as 12 of 13 trapped miners were found alive, attention turned to the Sago Mine's history of safety violations - and questions about the White House's commitment to mining safety."

And in the middle of the story The N&O says, “In recent years, Democrats have said the Bush administration’s enforcement of mining safety and environmental regulations must come under scrutiny.”

But nowhere does The N&O mention the many statistics indicating the century-long progress in mine safety has continued under the Bush administration. And The N&O doesn’t tell us anything about the many mine safety experts who dispute its “blame Bush” story.

Here are a few questions for Ted at State and other fans of The N&O’s “news reporting.”

We’ve been told The N&O barely had time to get out its wrong “found alive” story. So how did The N&O find time to also publish its “blame Bush” story?

If The N&O had held off a day or two on its “blame Bush” story, might it have had a little extra time to get its “found alive” headline story right?

And why haven’t Melanie Sill and Ted Vaden even mentioned the “blame Bush” story?

Many readers want to know more about both The N&O "miners found alive" story and its "Bush blaming" story.
______________________________________

More tomorrow.

An email to The N&O public editor

Many of you know that since Jan. 4 The N&O has claimed it told readers the Sago mine owners had not confirmed the men were found alive.

My copy of The N&O did not report that. I've had numerous contacts with The N&O trying to find out what's what.

Today I received from public editor Ted Vaden an email that's at the head of the email I just sent him by way of reply. You can read my most recent email below.

I'll post further on this matter tonight. Time is short now.
________________________________________________________


Dear Ted:

Re your email: John. Where do you live? It may be that you got an edition that didn't have that information. Our copy desk updated the story at least once, maybe twice as more info came in. Ted V.

My copy of the Jan. 4 N&O says West Edition.

Although neither you nor Melanie have mentioned it, The N&O's Jan. 4 West edition contained two mine stories.

One, of course, was your front page one reporting the men were alive.

The second also reported the men were alive. It's on page 10A and begins: "Even as 12 of 13 trapped miners were found alive, attention turned to the Sago Mine's history of safety violations - and questions about the White House's commitment to mining safety.

Questions:

Did your pg. 10A Bush-blamer mine story run in all editions?

If not, please tell me in which ones it ran?

The Boston Globe is cited at the bottom of the story. Is that entire story a Globe story? Or is part of it N&O?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Alito hearings outcome: A prediction

When his Senate confirmation hearings end, I think Judge Alito's standing with the public will be much higher than it is now. We may be saying Saturday that Alito impressed the public just as positively as then Judge Roberts did during his hearings.

I'll say more about this tonight.

Meanwhile, how do you think Alito's doing? Where do you think he'll stand Saturday?

This post reminded me of yesterday

In January 2004, blogger Collin May decided Howard Dean reminded him of students he’d met while at Harvard Divinity School. He contrasted them with students he’d met at Boston College. Here's some of what May said

Dean reminded me of the students and many of the professors I met when I was studying at Harvard Divinity School ten years ago - a combination of half-witted intellectual and provincial New England upper middle class trying desperately to be a liberal while stumbling all over his complete lack of familiarity with the traditional Democrat working-class and African-American voter.

I'm not surprised that Dean attracts a large "educated" group, which is more or less to say he attracts that coterie of pseudo-educated academic illiterate who has collected a few degrees but has no real understanding of the issues involved. This was exactly the kind of person Harvard Divinity School turned out.

I can contrast this with the two years I spent at Boston College. Many of the students there came from an Irish, Italian or Hispanic background. They were far more attuned to the working class mentality, but also far exceeded the Harvard Divinity students in terms of their intellectual abilities and their grasp of the essentials whether the subject was politics, philosophy or theology.

There's a certain "freshness" to May's comments, isn't there?

I'll bet we're all thinking of the same judicial nominee.

You can read May’s post here.

No Churchill Series post Jan. 9, 2006

Because of some other responsibilities, there's no post today.

I'm sorry I didn't post this message earlier. I kept thinking I could get a post done.

How did Churchill ever do all he did? Some person!

Please come back tomorrow evening after 10 PM.

John

Is Osama bin Laden dead?

We've heard the reports before: Osama bin Laden is dead. Often, they've come from very questionable sources.

But the latest OBL dead report comes via a respected errorism expert, Michael Ledeen, author of The War Against the Terror Masters and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Here's what he's says in an NRO article:

According to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

I hope you read Ledeen's whole article. I plan to comment on it tomorrow.

N&O public editor replies. I ask again.

Below are full taxt copies of three emails. The first I sent yesterday, Jan. 8, to Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden. I questioned a statement he made to N&O readers in his column yesterday.

The second is Vaden's reply.

The third is another email I sent Vaden after receiving his reply.

I'll let you know what I hear back.
____________________
FIRST EMAIL TO VADEN:

Dear Ted,

In today's column you say The N&O's Jan. 4 story on the miners "did note that the mine owners had not confirmed the rescue." Melanie has made the same claim at her blog.

But my Jan. 4 N&O doesn't contain any mention that "the mine owners had not confirmed the rescue."

What explains that?

Here's a link to a post today concerning your column:
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-cant-fault-no-public-editor-says.html

I'll post again on your column tomorrow.

Sincerely,

John
www.Johnincarolina.com
____________________
REPLY FROM VADEN:

From paragraph six of the Jan. 4 story: "The mine's owner, International Coal Group Inc., did not immediately confirm that the 12 other men were alive."

__________________________________________________
SECOND EMAIL TO VADEN:

Dear Ted:

After receiving your email I read The N&O's Jan. 4 front page miners story for what must be the fifth or sixth time.

Contrary to what you and Melanie are saying, nowhere in the story I read is there any mention that the "mine's owner, International Coal Group Inc., did not immediately confirm that the 12 other men were alive."

I've asked others to read the story. They, too, found nothing about mine owners
not immediately confirming the 12 men were alive.

The story ran five days ago. Any question about its contents, especially one of this importance, should have been resolved by now.

I want to do what I can to make that happen.

Would it help if I faxed you a copy of the part of your front page story that contains all the text there of the miners story as well as faxes of all text of the inside page part of the story?

If it's necessary, I'll drive to The N&O's office in Chapel Hill so one of your staffers can look at my Jan. 4 N&O. But I can't get to Chapel Hill much before 6:30 PM.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series - Jan. 8, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

I want to share a story that reflects Churchill's care for the precise use of language, even under the most trying circumstances. I can't cite a source for it but I recall reading it in a reliable one; and I don't doubt that on the important points the story is true. So with the usual caution about memory, here's the story.

Churchill was in his last years and visiting with friends in the South of France. After dinner, they went outside and sat quite awhile talking. Darkness fell and a wind came up. Churchill's physician, Lord Charles Moran, urged the party to go inside. Churchill wanted to stay outside. So the party did.

Churchill awoke the next morning with fever, chills and severe bronchial congestion. Lord Moran feared he had pneumonia but told Churchill he thought it was a cold. Moran added, "I fear you caught it sitting out so late on the porch."

Churchill, struggled to say something in response but Moran didn't catch it. So he bent close to him and asked what he'd said.

"It's a portico, Charles, a portico."

Don't miss Will; look in on Boyd

From a George Will column about government and people, David Boyd highlights this graf:

Government could spare itself the stress of moralizing about so many things if it decided that the choices people make with their money is their, not its, business. And government could avoid having opinions about so many things if it would quit subsidizing so many things.

Don’t miss Will’s column. And look in on Boyd.

"I can't fault The N&O," public editor says.

Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden's column today concerns The N&O's botched story reporting 12 miners had been found alive.

Vaden's column is basically more of what N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill has been telling readers: OK, the story was wrong. We're sorry. We'll review procedures but it wasn't our fault.

Here's how Vaden puts it:

I can't fault The N&O or the rest of the newspaper sorority for going with the incorrect story. It was the best information available and it was tied to credible, identified sources.

Compare Vaden's "can't fault The N&O" conclusion with what Wichita Eagle editor Sherry Chisenhall told readers about similar mistakes The Eagle made. From her Jan. 4 column, "Here's why The Eagle got it wrong:"

(We) violated a basic tenet of journalism today in our printed edition: Report what you know and how you know it.
…
We published what we believed to be true at the time. But unfortunately, we failed to make clear exactly where those reports were coming from and that they were not confirmed. Instead, our story and headline reported them as certainty.
…
Many newspapers and TV stations reported exactly what we did today. But being wrong in crowded company is still being wrong.

Our commitment to our readers is to tell you exactly what we know and how we know it. Today, we fell short.

I respect Chisenhall for so forthrightly acknowledging her paper's mistakes and accepting responsibility for them. Nowhere in her column does she shift responsibility and blame others. If it's a fair sample of how she regularly practices journalism, Chisenhall's staff and readers are very fortunate.

I'll say more about Vaden's column in a post tomorrow.

Meanwhile, I'm sending Vaden the following email. I'll let you know when he replies.
______________________________

Dear Ted,

In today's column you say The N&O's Jan. 4 story on the miners "did note that the mine owners had not confirmed the rescue." Melanie has made the same claim at her blog.

But my Jan. 4 N&O doesn't contain any mention that "the mine owners had not confirmed the rescue."

What explains that?

Here's a link to a post today concerning your column:
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-cant-fault-no-public-editor-says.html

I'll post again on your column tomorrow.

Sincerely,

John
www.Johnincarolina.com
________________________________

MSM reports on Bush's approval ratings

For a while it seemed we couldn't read or hear a news story that didn't include a reference to President Bush's approval rating.

"With President Bush's poll numbers plunging, the state fair opened today ..."

Even in the travel sections we were finding things like: "A family visiting Newfoundland could easily forget Bush's most recent approval rating is among the lowest ...."

Now that Bush's approval ratings have risen from the high 30's to the mid'40's we're not seeing or hearing many references to them.

That tells us something even as MSM insists it doesn’t have a political agenda

The Churchill Series - Jan. 7, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

One of the best of the recent, one volume studies of Churchill's life is Lord Jenkins', Churchill: A Biography, published in 2002. Historian John G. Plumpton began his review of Jenkins' work with:

"There are times," wrote the great Cambridge scholar, Sir Geoffrey Elton, "when I incline to judge all historians by their opinion of Winston Churchill - whether they can see that no matter how much better the details, often damaging, of man and career become known, he still remains, quite simply, a great man."

Sir Geoffrey would have likely judged the new Churchill biography by Roy Jenkins favourably. The octogenarian Jenkins, a biographer of Attlee, Asquith, Baldwin and Gladstone, among others, and a political colleague of Labour leaders since World War II, concludes with a startling admission: "When I started writing this book I thought that Gladstone was, by a narrow margin, the greater man...I now put Churchill, with all his idiosyncrasies, his indulgences, his occasional childishness, but also his genius, his tenacity and his persistent ability, right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, to be larger than life, as the greatest human being ever to occupy 10 Downing Street."

Plumpton's entire review is here. (Scroll down)

Jenkins's biography is still in print and available at many book stores, on the net, and in decent public libraries.

Dems chicken out on anti-Alito witness. Now what?

I was looking forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Alito confirmation hearings once I heard the Democrats’ final witness would be journalist and animal rights activist Stephen Durjack.

Then Matt Drudge blew the whistle and reported that in 2003, Durjack wrote in the Los Angles Times:

“Like the victims of the Holocaust, animals are rounded up, trucked hundreds of miles to the kill floor and slaughtered.”

Durjack didn’t stop there. He went on and said :

“To those who defend the modern-day Holocaust on animals by saying that animals are slaughtered for food and give us sustenance, I ask: if the victims of the Holocaust had been eaten, would that have justified the abuse and murder?”

With all that public, Senators Leahy, Kennedy and the rest got a little nervous and decided they could do without Durjack even though he was ready to join them in -- what else? -- calling Alito sexist and racist.

So the Dems pulled Durjack's name from their witness list.

Question: Can Republicans add Durjack to their witness list?

Let’s give some attention to Durjack, so the American people will notice and denounce him and the Democrats who tried to pass him off as a credible Senate witness.

How and why did The Raleigh News & Observer get it wrong?

A little after midnight, Jan. 4, I looked at Yahoo's news site and read the AP story on the miners.

I called out to my wife," There's a report they've found 12 of the miners alive, but the mine's owners are not confirming it."

"Let’s pray it's true," she said.

I'm sure about that time and during the next few hours very similar conversations took place between hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who wanted to believe the men were alive but knew the AP had said the reports were unconfirmed.

Recalling how much of MSM Katrina reporting on victims and survivors later proved false no doubt helped many to be extra cautious in what they said about the miners’ fate.

Yet The Raleigh News & Observer used the AP story to produce its Jan. 4 front page, headline story, W. Va. families rejoice as 12 miners found alive.

That The N&O would do that is very troubling; and not excused by the fact that many other MSM news organizations did something similar.

Of course, The N&O didn’t want to get the story wrong; that only makes it more troubling that it did.

This was not a hard story to get right. By right I mean adhering to the old journalist adage: Report only what you know and how you know it.

Example: In answer to my questions this morning, Jan. 6, The Fayetteville Observer’s executive editor for news, Brian Tolley, told me his paper’s Jan. 4 Home edition reported the AP story under the headline, 12 Alive, Families Say. He also said The Observer’s story included the AP statement that the mine owners had not confirmed the men had been found alive.

Contrast that with The N&O’s Jan. 4 story (West edition) that not only headlined as fact that the men were found alive, but also failed to tell readers the mine owners had not confirmed that.

If you're asking how and why The N&O got the story wrong, here’s a sample of what its executive editor for news Melanie Sill is telling readers:

In hindsight, always 20-20, what I think we could have done better was make clear in the headline that this information was preliminary. The story noted that the mine company had not confirmed the reports, but the headline did not. ( JinC readers' note - As stated above, The N&O ( West edition) failed to tell readers "that the mine company had not confirmed the reports.")

We're sorry for putting out an incorrect story, but I think the summary in my post shows that The N&O was working hard to give its readers the news. And I have no apology for that.

Folks who look for any opportunity to bash us can see this as another, but there's a difference between getting bad information from credible sources and being irresponsible.

You can read more of what Sill is telling N&O readers at her blog post,The mine story: From good news to bad.

Not all editors whose papers got the story wrong are giving readers the “bad information from credible sources” excuse. Nor are they saying readers who ask how and why questions are folks “who look for any opportunity to bash us.”

Take a look at what Wichita Eagle editor Sherry Chisenhall said to her readers in her Jan. 4 column, Here's why The Eagle got it wrong:

I'll explain why we (and newspapers across the country) went to press last night with the information we had at the time. But it won't excuse the blunt truth that we violated a basic tenet of journalism today in our printed edition: Report what you know and how you know it.
…
We published what we believed to be true at the time. But unfortunately, we failed to make clear exactly where those reports were coming from and that they were not confirmed. Instead, our story and headline reported them as certainty.
…
Many newspapers and TV stations reported exactly what we did today. But being wrong in crowded company is still being wrong.

Our commitment to our readers is to tell you exactly what we know and how we know it. Today, we fell short.

I respect editor Chisenhall for acknowledging her newspaper’s mistakes instead of shifting blame onto others. I doubt it was easy for her to write that column. But I think it was very important she did. I’ll soon say why I believe that.

I’ll also be posting more often concerning N&O news reporting.

Meanwhile, we still have the questions of how and why The N&O got the miner story wrong.

Please continue to visit.
___________________________________
PREVIOUS:
Raleigh N&O editor wants to discuss the weather

Raleigh News & Observer post later today

Raleigh N & O editor wants to discuss the weather

Many Raleigh News & Observer readers have had back-and-forth today with N&O editor Melanie Sill concerning the paper's erroneous report that the 12 miners had been found alive. I'm one of those readers.

You can read some of what we said at Sill's blog post, The mine story: From good news to bad. I hear many other readers phoned or emailed Sill.

If you go down the comment thread, see if you think Sill answers readers' questions about how The N&O took the AP story that clearly said the mine's owners were not confirming the men were alive, and then produced its Jan. 4 headline story: "W. Va. families rejoice as 12 miners found alive."

Yes, many other MSM news organizations made the same mistake(s) The N&O made. But not all did.

So questions about how The N&O came to make its mistake are important for the paper and its readers.

BTW - Sill now wants to change the subject and talk about the weather.

Don't laugh. I'm not kidding. See for yourself here, Change in the weather.

I'll post again later tonight.

Raleigh News & Observer post later today

Here in North Carolina many people are asking how The N&O got the miners story wrong.

I have meetings now, but later today I'll be posting some thoughts, including linking to previous JinC posts pointing to other important stories The N&O "got wrong."

Meanwhile, visit N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill's blog where The N&O's miners story is being discussed at this post: The mine story:From good news to bad.

I left a question on the thread which so far Sill hasn't answered.

See you later today.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 4, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In Summer, 1975, a certain Dr. Merry informed London Daily Telegraph readers that Churchill drank too much. What's more, the good doctor said he felt sure Churchill's drinking influenced his judgement and led him to make decisions which lengthened WW II.

Well, as you might guess, many readers were unwilling to swallow Dr. Merry's concoctions. Here's what two of them said in letters to the editor:

"The inappropriately named Dr. Merry is undoubtedly correct when he says that Sir Winston Churchill was responsible for lengthening the war. Had it not been for Churchill the war would have ended much earlier in Britain's defeat."

M. A. Wicking
Tunbridge Wells.
.............................

"What did Lincoln say when it was reported to him that Grant was getting through a bottle of whisky a day? 'Fine, find out what brand and send a case with my compliments to all the other generals.'"

Leon Drucker
London

If we met them, I bet we'd all say to Wicking and Drucker, "Cheers."
__________________________________________
The Churchill Centre: Action This Day, Summer, 1975, page.(Scroll down)

Castro’s Killing of Thousands Exposed

In his Boston Globe column today, Jeff Jacoby writes about www.CubaArchive.org , an organization dedicated to documenting Castro’s brutal treatment of innocent people. Over 9, 000 such people have been killed since Castro came to power.

THE LONGEST-RULING despot in the world is Fidel Castro, who seized power in Cuba 47 years ago this week. Like most dictators, Castro is a brazen liar, especially about his own regime. This, for example, is what he told an international conference in Havana in April 2001:

"There have never been death squads in our country, nor a single missing person, nor a single political assassination, nor a single victim of torture. . . . You may travel around the country, ask the people, look for a single piece of evidence, try to find a single case where the Revolutionary government has ordered or tolerated such an action. And if you find them, then I will never speak in public again."

One would have to be willfully blind -- a useful idiot, in Lenin's phrase -- to believe such a reeking falsehood. But when it comes to Castro, useful idiots have never been in short supply. From Norman Mailer to Jean-Paul Sartre, from Jesse Jackson to Ted Turner, a long line of admirers has swooned over the bearded tyrant, lavishly praising his wisdom and charm -- and never showing the slightest interest in his real record: cruelty, repression, and a death toll in the tens of thousands.

But Castro's mocking challenge -- "try to find a single case" -- is not going unanswered. The Cuba Archive project (www.CubaArchive.org) is working to document the cost, in human life, of more than five decades of Cuban dictatorship.

The New Jersey-based archive's tiny staff has set itself the monumental task of identifying every man, woman, and child killed by Cuba's rulers since March 10, 1952, the day Batista ousted the island's last democratically elected president. Meticulously, impartially, the archive's researchers are assembling the evidence that Castro claims doesn't exist -- victim by victim, one death at a time.

It is heartbreaking work. The revolution's victims have died in front of firing squads and been beaten to death by government goons; they have been sunk while at sea and shot down while flying; they have been killed for resisting communism at home and killed when sent to fight for communism abroad. In the hands of Castro's jailers, some have been driven to suicide; many more have disappeared.
...

There is much more in Jacoby's column. It's such a powerful, fact-based exposure of Castro's dictatorship that it should shame his many liberal and leftist supporters here in America. But I doubt it will.

You can read the column here.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 3, 2006

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Following the attacks of September 11 Finest Hour, The Churchill Centre's quarterly, republished an essay by his official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert. The Centre had first published the essay, "Churchill For Today," a decade before. It said it was republishing it “because of its particular relevance in 2002”

Gilbert’s essay has as much “particular relevance” at the start of 2006 as it did in the aftermath of 9/11. Here are selected portions, followed by a link to the entire essay.

"Why study Churchill?" I am often asked. "Surely he has nothing to say to us today?" Yet in my own work, as I open file after file of Churchill's archive, from his entry into Government in 1905 to his retirement in 1955 (a 50-year span!), I am continually surprised by the truth of his assertions, the modernity of his thought, the originality of his mind, the constructiveness of his proposals, his humanity, and, most remarkable of all, his foresight.

When, in 1919, Churchill called Lenin the embodiment of evil, many people thought it was a typical Churchillian exaggeration. "How unfair," they exclaimed, "how unworthy of a statesman."
…
From the first days of Communist rule in Russia, Churchill did not doubt for a moment that the Communist system would be a blight on free enterprise and a terrible restraint on all personal freedoms.
…
Nevertheless, Churchill was always an optimist with regard to human affairs. One of his favourite phrases, a Boer saying that he had heard in South Africa in 1899, was: "All will come right." He was convinced, even during the Stalinist repressions in Russia, that Communism could not survive. Throughout his life he had faith in the power of all peoples to control and improve their own destiny, without the interference of outside forces.
...
(In 1950), at the height of the Stalin era, these were Churchill's words, in Boston: "The machinery of propaganda may pack (peoples') minds with falsehood and deny them truth for many generations of time, but the soul of man thus held in trance, or frozen in a long night, can be awakened by a spark coming from God knows where, and in a moment the whole structure of lies and oppression is on trial for its life."
…
Once a war had been thrust on any nation, Churchill was a leading advocate of fighting it until it was won, until the danger of subjugation and tyranny had been brought to an end. He was equally certain that, by foresight and wisdom, all wars could be averted: provided the threatened states banded together and built up their collective strength.

This is what the Western world failed to do in the Chamberlain era: Churchill always regarded the Second World War as the "unnecessary war" that could have been averted by a united stand of those endangered by Hitler. Forty years later, in the Reagan-Thatcher era, Churchill's precept was followed. The result is that under their successors the prospects for a peaceful world were much enhanced.
…
In every sphere of human endeavour, Churchill foresaw the dangers and potential for evil. Many of those dangers are our dangers today. He also pointed the way forward to our solutions for tomorrow. That is one reason why his life is worthy of our attention.

Some writers portray him as a figure of the past, an anachronism, a grotesque. In doing so, it is they who are the losers, for he was a man of quality: a good guide for our troubled decade and for the generations now reaching adulthood

The essay is here.

On Abramoff: Is the NY Times serving readers or the Dems?

Today's New York Times report of the Jack Abramoff plea agreement is headlined: G.O.P. Lobbyist to Plead Guilty in Deal With Prosecutors

The Times story twice refers to Abramoff as a "Republican" lobbyist and, off course, it brings in Rep. Tom DeLay. The story never mentions the word "Democrat” or names any of the Democrats who received money from Abramoff's lobbying firm

But a June 3, 2005 Washington Post story reported:

Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.

Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study.

Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.

Democrats are hoping to gain political advantage from federal and Senate investigations of Abramoff's activities and from the embattled lobbyist's former ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). Yet, many Democratic lawmakers also benefited from Abramoff's political operation, a fact that could hinder the Democrats' efforts to turn the lobbyist's troubles into a winning partisan issue.

Yes, information about the Abramoff-Democratic connections could make it hard for the Dems to turn Abramoff's actions into "a winning partisan issue." Count on the New York Times to do its best to make sure it doesn't.

Sheehan- NY Times race "too close to call"

Over at Little Green Footballs, Cindy Sheehan and the New York Times are locked in a tight battle for the Idiotarian of the Year Award.

Sheehan had been ahead in early voting, but the Times has now taken a small lead with votes still being cast. Experts say the election is still too close to call.

The Times may have gained some momentum following disclosure Sunday that publisher Pinch Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller are refusing to answer written questions concerning their decision to breech national security by publishing the NSA domestic surveillance story. The questions were put to them by their own public editor.

You can vote here until Wednesday, Jan. 4, at 11:59:59 pm Pacific.

Don’t wait. Click and go to the “voting booth” now. Let your voice be heard.

Storms here. Posting delayed

I'm down on the Carolina coast today. We're experiencing severe thunderstorms.

I've got a few posts partly finished but I'm shutting down now.

I hope to be back up later.

Keep your fingers crossed.

John