The Churchill Series - Feb. 10, 2006

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

On November 30, 1924, Churchill turned fifty.

One of his biographers, William Manchester, would later describe Churchill at fifty:

(He was) portly, bald, stooped, his face lined with wrinkles accumulated during countless crises, any one of which would have aged most men overnight.

Yet the overall effect was pleasant. He had begun to resemble the cartoonist's conception of John Bull, hearty and prosperous, with an ovoid torso and a low center of gravity, good-humored if you let him have his way but stubborn and even refractory if you didn't.

His height was just under five feet, seven inches, which would have surprised those who knew him only through newspaper photographs, because his massive shoulders led one to expect a taller man.

His manner was always forthright, never devious, no one ever called him enigmatic.

As unsubtle as the rare roast beef he ( and John Bull) loved, his expression invariably reflected his mood. He beamed, looked puckish, frowned, wept, or brooded, but of the thousands of Churchill photographs, none shows him bored.

What a wonderful word portrait.

And as for no photo showing him bored, remember what our parents taught us: Boredom is what happens to people who aren't interested in anything? That was never Churchill.
_____________________________________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion: Visions of Glory. (p. 755)

Yes, it's true what they said about The Raleigh News & Observer

Earlier today you may have read this JinC post, Is it true what they're saying about The Raleigh News & Observer?

The Post asked:

Did The N&O really fail to report anything today, Feb. 10, about Associated Press's disclosures yesterday of Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid's involvement with Jack Abramoff and Reid's staff's involvement with Abramoff's staff?

Friends said there was nothing in The N&O about the Reid/Abramoff story but I hadn't been home to check my N&O.

I did search N&O Online but found nothing there indicating the Democratic Senate Leader was involved in the Abramoff scandal.

What to think?

Yes, The N&O's a Democratic newspaper and liberal and trending left. But it's executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, assures readers N&O news reporting is "unbiased."

I said in the Is it true what they're saying about The Raleigh News & Observer? post I hoped The N&O wasn't holding the Reid story for Saturday, the weeks slowest news day.

I promised to follow up.

Late this afternoon I emailed N&O public editor Ted Vaden who promptly responded:

Re the Reid story, our nation editor said it was a long story and we didn't have space for it today. She plans to run it over the weekend.

A thank you to editor Vaden for his prompt and "to the question" response.

Let's watch how The N&O reports the Reid/Abramoff story in the next few days and weeks.

Meanwhile, my copy of today's N&O (Feb. 10, West edition) contains a four column, national page "news" story headlined:

Good buzz helps make a song a hit, study finds.

But hey, The N&O can't report everything, can it.

JinC post main lead at Newsbusters

This morning I posted, The New York Times gets it wrong again.

Since 4:15 PM the post has been Newsbusters Main Page lead.

Yes, I'm happy for JinC.

And I also want the word to spead about the NYT's error which I find hard to understand as just "an accident."

Is it true what they're saying about The Raleigh News & Observer?

I haven't seen my copy of today's liberal trending left Raleigh News & Observer yet but friends are telling me there's no mention in the paper of yesterday's Associated Press story concerning Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid and the many thousands of dollars he's taken from Indian tribes involved in the Jack Abramoff scandal.

And, friends say, The N&O has so far failed to report on the AP's detailing of the many direct contacts Reid's staff has had with members of Abramoff’s staff.

Would the folks who control the news at The N&O, a McClatchy Co. paper, be holding back on a tough news for their party; and waiting to slip it out tomorrow, Saturday, the week’s slowest news day?

I'm in a rush now but I'll return to all of this later today.

Meanwhile, we should all remember The N&O says there's no bias in its news columns.

The New York Times gets it wrong again

The New York Times latest effort to twist the Katrina tragedy into a Bush-basher appears today in Eric Lipton’s story, White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm.

According to Lipton's story, the White House knew of flooding in New Orleans by midnight August 30.

But the alert did not seem to register. Even the next morning, President Bush, on vacation in Texas, was feeling relieved that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet," he later recalled. (bold added)

Surely the Times knows the next morning the President was at the North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego taking part in an anniversary observance of V-J Day. Here's The White Press release of the event, including photos.

During his remarks Bush gave a Katrina update, said federal aide was underway, and told individual Americans how they could help.

The President later visited the Naval hospital in San Diego before flying on to Arizona for a speech on medicare; all the while being kept informed of Katrina developments and making necessary decisions regarding relief efforts.

In searching the Times' archives I could find no mention of the President being in California on August 30, but the Times did report his Arizona speech:

President Bush alluded to the energy situation today during a appearance in El Mirage, Ariz., where he was speaking on Medicare.

Matt Drudge is reporting The White House has asked the Times for a retraction of it's "President Bush, on vacation in Texas" error.

A prompt retraction is certainly due. And so are explanations of how and why the error appeared in Lipton's story.

If you wish to contact the NY Times public editor Byron Calame: public@nytimes.com

I'll let you know if the Times retracts and explains.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 9, 2006

A blogger friend posted concerning an article in today’s London Times:

A manuscript charting the birth of modern science that was lost for centuries has been rediscovered at the bottom of a cupboard.

The 520-page document, an account of meetings and debates at the Royal Society from 1661 to 1691, was written by Robert Hooke, one of the foremost 17th-century scientists and a bitter enemy of Sir Isaac Newton. It is described as the “discovery of a generation”.

The rest of the article is here.

Of course, you’ll all read it. But what does it have to do with Churchill, you’re asking?

Well, for one thing, in those recurring “Greatest Briton” polls Churchill and Newton usually go neck and neck for “first past the post.” Both greats have had their wins.

Here are some recent race results as reported in the Datelines section of Finest Hour’s Autumn, 2003 edition (p.6). (pdf)

Scientist Sir Isaac Newton triumphed in a poll for the greatest Briton conducted with an international audience.

Viewers of BBC World voted the discoverer of gravity as the most respected Briton, ahead of Churchill who was voted the greatest Briton in a similar UK-wide poll last year. Sir Isaac polled 21.4% of the online audience. Sir Winston was second with 17%.

The apple doesn’t fall far … oh never mind.

Curchillians will have no trouble congratulating our Newtonian friends. Their man is a very worthy candidate.

I've only one small criticism of the Newtonians. They approach these contests with a bit too much gravity.

If he keeps doing it, why not keep saying it

I think its OK to keep saying the same thing about someone if the person keeps doing the same thing.

Take blogger David Boyd, for example.

I keep saying he has a wonderful capacity to pull and post the most important parts of blogworthy op-eds and other type articles.

And Boyd keeps doing it. At least IMHO he does.

Here are two recent examples:From Cliff May’s column, The Cartoon Intifada, at Townhall.com,David posted:

Machiavelli provided the answer more than 500 years ago. For those who would rule, he said, it is better "to be feared than loved."

By now, all but the most self-deluded among us recognize that Militant Islamists are waging a War Against the West, a deadly jihad against Christians, Jews, Hindus and moderate Muslims. These religiously inspired fascists have no interest in being loved by "infidels." They do, however, want to inspire fear – and they do want to rule.

And from R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s column, Angry Young Men, at The American Spectator, David posted:

The peoples in such a rage over Danish cartoonists are a deeply troubled people. They are incapable of reason or even of governing themselves. They are the enemy of civilization, whether it be Western civilization or some civilized order that might emerge in the Middle East.

Take a look at both May and Tyrrell's columns.

I hope you decide to visit David Boyd often.

The AP says the President "blindsided" the Mayor

Leading with a shock headline, L.A. Mayor Blindsided by Bush Announcement, the Associated Press reports:

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush's announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as "nonexistent."

"I'm amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels," the mayor told The Associated Press. "I don't expect a call from the president — but somebody."Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before but he publicly filled in the details Thursday. (bold added)

Yes, it's an old news story but the AP still wants to shock us with L.A. Mayor Blindsided by Bush Announcement. And, of course, give His Honor the chance to tell us just how bad The White House is at communicating with him.

Later in the story the AP tells us:

The mayor said homeland security needs better funding, including for the protection of high-risk targets in Los Angeles. He said some funding could be redirected from the war in Iraq, but he did not advocate an immediate withdrawal of troops.

But for all of that, the AP never manages to get around to telling us Villaraigosa is a Democrat.

Now why could that be?

The entire AP story is here.

Posting resumes this evening

I'm traveling most of today.

Posting will resume this evening.

John

The who, where and why of the cartoon riots

At Betsy’s Page she posts on an Amir Taheri column detailing how hateful groups of Muslim fundamentalist planned and instigated the cartoon riots the have led to arson and murders and a largely quivering American media response.

Betsy begins:

Amir Taheri reviews the chronology in the incitement to riot about the Danish cartoons. Just in case you were under the delusion that this was a naturally arising sense of outrage. It was planned and carefully scheduled so it would not interfere with Hamas' campaign to win the elections in the Palestinian authority.

There’s a lot more about the who, where and why of the planning. Read it all here.

Then take a look at this JinC post, Why they hate us.

Why they hate us

After 9/11 the Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Saad’s were happily running around to media outlets and university campuses explaining “why they hate us.”

Universities held long, long teach-ins where it seemed every member of their social science and humanities faculties offered students endless examples of “why they hate us.” And MSM media were happy to pass it all on to America’s public.

This last week we’ve learned they hate the Danes, too.

The Danes! The Danes. One of the peoples the “why they hate us” leftists told us Americans needed to be more like.

Now, this morning from the Associated Press::

A suicide bombing ripped through a Shiite procession Thursday in northwestern Pakistan, sparking riots during the Muslim sect's most important holiday. At least 22 people were killed and dozens injured, officials said.

The bomb targeted hundreds of people in a bazaar soon after they emerged from the main Shiite mosque in the town of Hangu, district police chief Ayub Khan said. [...]

It’s a tragic story but not a new one. Muslims have been murdering Muslims for centuries.


Why do Muslim extremists hate us? Because they’re hateful people who have distorted their religion in order to justify criminal acts.

A handful of cartoons proved that.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 8, 2006

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

I'm traveling today and tomorrow so this post is short and light. Let’s enjoy some of Churchill's less well known humorous remarks.

He loved poking fun at his political foe and long-time friend, Clement Atlee. "There goes a modest man who has much to be modest about" is perhaps the best known barb Churchill sent Atlee's way.

Less well-known is my favorite Atlee barb: "An empty taxi arrived at 10 Downing Street, and when the door was opened, Atlee got out."

Regarding the American Secretary of State John Foster Dulles: "He's the only bull I know who carries with him his own china shop."

At his own expense: "I am always ready to learn although I do not always like being taught."

"I'm just preparing my impromptu remarks."

And these wise words for all of us: "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."

I hope you come back tomorrow.

John

Shameful appeasement

Columnist Kathleen Parker has been in the forefront of those speaking up recently for western civilization. Excerpts from her most recent column:

The past several days of mayhem throughout the Muslim world — all thanks to a handful of mild cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed — have provided a clarifying moment for those still uncertain about what the West faces from radical disciples of the Islamic faith.

What's clear is that East and West are not just cultures apart, but centuries, and that certain elements of the Muslim world would like to drag us back into the Dark Ages.

What is also clear is that the West's own leaders, both in Europe and the USA, as well as many of our own journalists, have been weak-spined when it comes to defending the principles of free expression that the artists in Denmark were exploring.

Instead of stepping up to passionately defend freedoms won through centuries of bloody sacrifice, most have bowed to ayatollahs of sensitivity, rebuking the higher calling of enlightenment and sending the cartoonists into hiding under threat of death.

Many U.S. newspapers have declined to reproduce the cartoons out of respect for Muslims, setting up the absurd implication that an open airing of the debate's content constitutes disrespect.
...

Of course, one can always justify being offended because taking offense is always a subjective act of volition. What is appalling, meanwhile, is appeasing crazed radicals in betrayal of moderate Muslims courageously trying to speak truth to insanity.

Appalling is our official genuflection to an irrational horde that has no interest in compromise or reason but only in submission. Ours.

Parker has much more to say. I hope you read it all.

Parker ends with this:

These are the fascist thugs, not the artists who draw cartoons in the service of democracy and truth. And those who out of a misguided sense of cultural sensitivity and niceness try to justify Muslim outrage over a cartoon are, frankly, lending aid and comfort to the enemies of civilization.

Coretta Scott King: A tribute.

In tribute: Some thoughts and feelings following Coretta Scott King’s memorial service.

Deep gratitude for what she and Dr. King did to move America closer to the fulfillment of its ideals.

Admiration for the grace and dignity she always displayed in public.

Sympathy for her children.

A hope that we will use her life to help guide our own. Especially, that we’ll encourage our young to follow her example.

Do Dems really miss opportunities?

Today’s New York Times contains an article, Some Democrats Are Sensing Missed Opportunities.

Democrats are heading into this year's elections in a position weaker than they had hoped for, party leaders say, stirring concern that they are letting pass an opportunity to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities.

Hmm. Are Dems really letting pass opportunities "to exploit what they see as widespread Republican vulnerabilities?"

They certainly didn’t do that yesterday at Coretta Scott King’s nationally televised memorial service.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 7, 2006

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

Churchill said that as a boy there were some things about school he liked. They included memorizing “lots of Poetry by heart.”

When well into his late eighties, Churchill could still recite poems he'd learned as a boy. Invictus, by William Ernest Henley, was one of his favorites. The poem stirred him, he told people, and gave him strength in trying times.

The following version is taken from Louis Untermeyer’s Modern British Poetry.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

If The News & Observer's N&O Live was really live

With readership and advertising revenues declining, MSM newspaper chains now sponsor at their papers’ online sites Q&A sessions between readers and their reporters and journalists.

The chains hope letting readers “talk to real journalists” will build trust in their papers, thereby helping stem the flood of readers to other news sources, especially bloggers.

The McClatchy Co. chain owns my local liberal trending left newspaper, The Raleigh News & Observer.

McClatchy and The N&O call their Q&A show N&O Live. Only their show isn’t live. It’s previewed and scripted.

If you want to “appear on N&O Live,” you must submit your question in advance. N&O staffers read it and decide if it should be used on N&O Live. Then etc., etc.

So that’s N&O Live?

But suppose N&O Live was really live. What would the show be like?

It might be like this :

Host: “We have N&O public editor Ted Vaden with us today. Our first caller.”

‘Hello, Mr. Vaden, this is Johnincarolina and I want..." (click)

Host: “We have a second caller from Chapel Hill. Are you there, second caller?

“Yes, and I don’t really have a question. I just wanted to tell Mr. Vaden what a stupendous newspaper The N&O is.

And how great I thought it was that The N&O never said anything during the Alito hearings about Sen. Teddy Kennedy belonging to that all male Owl Club. You know, the one that bars women from membership.

I mean, first right wingers complained about how Kennedy treats women. Then they complain he belongs to an all male club.

I mean, make up your minds, right wingers. And give the guy a break.”

Host: “Er, yes, but do you have a question, Chapel Hill caller?”

“Well, I suppose I do. It’s …it’s how does The N&O resist all that pressure from the vast right wing conspiracy?

I’ll hang up now so Mr. Vaden can answer my question.”

Readers, would you like a show where you could call in your N&O questions live and without review?

And would you be upset if The McClatchy Co. and The N&O called the show something like N&O Really Live?

BTW - How much did readers and advertisers pay whoever dreamed up N&O Live?

Reuters is still headlining "cartoon row."

If you look up row at Merriam-Webster Online, and read past four other definitions having to do with rowing, you get to this definition:

a noisy disturbance or quarrel.

You'll also find row today in a Reuters headline:

Bush calls Danish PM with support in cartoon row

At Reuters, it's been "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Now, it's one man's arson, riots and worse are another man's row.

We shouldn't have expected anything else from Reuters.

Will it be All Things Morally Equivalent?

National Public Radio political correspondent Mara Liasson is a regular commentator on Fox News Special Report with Brit Hume.

Liasson, like most journalists at NPR, is a liberal. But she’s always seemed informed and reflective. At least until last night, Feb 6.

Brit Hume was discussing the death threats, riots, arson, and worse by some Muslims which they justify as a legitimate, religiously-based response to provocative cartoons in a Danish newspaper.

It response to Hume, Liasson said:

A case can be made that the Danish newspaper did this as a provocation, in poor taste, whatever--maybe they shouldn't have published them--but the reaction has been equally egregious. (bold added)

I found it hard to believe Liasson would say such a thing. But she did. You can view and/ or hear it at Michelle Malkin (via The Colossus of Rhodey).

Liasson’s statement is shocking. Even the doltish liberals at the Guardian aren’t engaging in moral equivalence after Muslims in London last Saturday screamed and waved signs calling for murders, dismemberments and "more 9/11s" in Britain.

How could Liasson have said what she said? She needs to offer an explanation and apology today.

If she doesn’t, NPR might as well rename their news program All Things Morally Equivalent.

Former President Carter is so predictable

We read today this from the Associated Press:

Ex-President Carter: Eavesdropping Illegal

Former President Jimmy Carter criticized the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program Monday and said he believes the president has broken the law.

"Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision _ we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Carter told reporters. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act."

And so on here.

Anyone surprised?

No, and you won't be surprised in a few days or weeks when the former President makes a statement that begins: "Of course I deplore violence but...", and then goes on to criticize the cartoonists and those who are standing with them.

Let's watch for Carter's sure to come statement.

Please let me know if you see it first.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 6, 2006

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

A few years back The London Times published an article, Winston Churchill, soldier and journalist.

Here are excerpts:

Winston Churchill’s early life was dominated by the Army and by journalism.

At the age of 20, in February 1895, he was commissioned in the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars.

The military year was divided into seven months’ summer training and five months’ winter leave, during which young officers were expected to gain experience by joining a suitable military campaign.

Since early summer, the Spanish authorities in Cuba had been hard-pressed by rebels, and 80,000 reinforcements had been sent to suppress the rebellion.

Seeing an opportunity to witness some real military action, Churchill and a fellow subaltern, Reginald Barnes, went to Cuba in October and attached themselves to General Suarez Valdez.

On November 30, his 21st birthday, Churchill witnessed his first action: “For the first time I heard shots fired in anger, and heard bullets strike flesh or whistle through the air.”
…
The following year, 1896, Churchill’s military career took him to India, where he (joined a field force) under Sir Binden Blood to tackle the revolt of the Pathan tribesmen on the Indian frontier.

By August 1897, he was with the force at Malakand, on the Indian border (now part of Pakistan) with Afghanistan.
…

Pathans are a tribal people we refer to as Pashtuns. They inhabit the border area of what is now southeastern Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. Many believe Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in that area.

Churchill’s experiences in the fighting there formed the basis for his first book, The Story of the Malakand Field Force, published in 1898..

The Times' article, Winston Churchill, soldier and journalist, was published on September 10, 2001.

The Raleigh New & Observer's N&O Live isn't live

The Raleigh News & Observer online now features one of those Q&A shows where readers ask questions of reporters and editors. The show's called N&O Live. Only it isn't live.

N&O Live questions are submitted in advance and reviewed by the N&O. Then those selected for the show are printed on screen and "asked by the Moderator.” It’s no surprise the questions are almost all "softballs."

Here's a couple of "softballs" executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, fielded on the Feb. 1 show:

Moderator: "What's the most common sort of question you get from the public about the N&O's coverage?"

And this:

Moderator: “How do editors decide which story’s going to go on Page One?"

As I understand it, one of the main purposes of N&O Live is to increase readers' trust in The N&O.

How does calling a Q&A show that previews and selects the questions N&O Live do that?

Won't a title like that lead many people to conclude the show is more about institutional puffery than earning readers' trust?

I'll email executive editor Sill and public editor Ted Vaden links to this post and invite them to comment here.

I'll keep you posted

Don't get sick in Pakistan

Michelle Malkin alerts us to a recent decision of The Pakistan Medical Association:

MULTAN, Pakistan (AFX) - The Pakistan Medical Association has vowed not to prescribe medicines from firms based in some European countries where controversial cartoons portraying the Prophet Mohammed were published, said Shahid Rao, the body's general secretary for Punjab province.

The association will boycott drugs from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the 'blasphemous' drawings, Rao said.

'We have taken a unanimous decision and it will be immediately implemented in Pakistan,' Rao told AFP.

'Doctors in the country are very motivated on this issue,' he said. 'We would use alternate medicines in future till a public apology comes from these countries.'

There's more here.

Questions: What alternate medicines? Ground beetles and sage mixed in warm brine?

Is the PMA recommending bloodletting? Leeches?

Malkin calls what The PMA is doing "nuts." She's got it.

Is Sen. Jay Rockefeller the Times' NSA leaker?

Lorie Byrd at Polipundit posts on the possibility the New York Times' NSA leaker is Sen. Jay Rockefeller (Dem. – W. Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

Take a look here.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 5, 2006

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

On September 6, 1943 Churchill spoke at Harvard University. He has just come from Quebec, where together with Roosevelt and their top military aides, the decision had been made to launch the invasion we know as D-Day.

Churchill spoke to the blood and toil of the war in progress. Then he turned to consider the world that would emerge from the war. What should guide us then?

Law, language, literature - these are considerable factors. 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.

We do not war primarily with races as such. Tyranny is our foe, whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilized, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat.

In all this, we march together. Not only do we march and strive shoulder to shoulder at this moment under the fire of the enemy on the fields of war or in the air, but also in those realms of thought which are consecrated to the rights and the dignity of man.

They’re word’s for today, aren’t they.

Churchill’s entire speech is here, and followed by comments from a student who heard it.

The text copy of Churchill's speech and the student comments are courtesy of The Churchill Centre.

Raleigh News & Observer posts tomorrow

Many of you have asked for more Raleigh News & Observer posts.

"Put the spotlight on them, John."

Well, I don't know if you'd call them "spotlights," but tomorrow I'll put up two posts about The N&O.

And in the future, I’ll pay more attention The N&O; and post about it more often.

The Cartoon Jihad

Melanie Phillips is a British journalist and author whose critics say she’s a conservative.

Phillips insists she’s a liberal. Maybe not a “today” liberal, but certainly a classical liberal.

Do you remember such liberals?

They said everyone should be equal before the law. They wanted women to have the same rights as men. They opposed racial preferences. They cherished that great western value, democracy.

Well, let’s leave the question of Phillips’ liberalism for another post.

In this post, let’s look only at her most recent column.

In immediate terms, Phillips’ column is about the cartoons. In broader terms, it’s about western civilization and the need to defend it.

If you read the first and last sentences of Phillips’s column, I think you’ll want to read it all.

Here’s the first:

The still escalating confrontation over the Danish cartoons dramatically illustrates the now pathological reluctance of the leaders of Britain and America to face up to the blindingly obvious and the extent to which they have already run up the white flag in the face of clerical fascism.

And here’s the last:

Twelve scribbled drawings have lifted the veil -- on both the nature of the threat and the disarray that greets it.

Phillips’ entire column is here.

Double standards on protests

EU Referendum reminds us of a then and now double standard.

Than it was Sept. 15, 2004, and people in London peacefully protesting a ban of foxhunting:

Instantly, the police responded with a flail of truncheons.[...] They were scenes more associated with the clash of police and shaven-headed football hooligans or dreadlocked anti-capitalist demonstrators rather than men in flat caps and women in quilted waistcoats.

Now its Feb 3, 2006 and Muslim's are protesting in London.

An Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman said that the protests did not yet represent a serious threat to public order. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Arrests, if necessary, will be made at the most appropriate time. This should not be taken as a sign of lack of action."

Scotland Yard says a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears. It confirmed that police had received more than 100 complaints from the public about the protesters' behaviour.

Glenn Reynolds adds:

Once again, the message is that if you blow things up, or even look as if you might, we'll be nice to you. And once again, I note that this is a very unwise message to send.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

The left will stand with the Danes when

About Muslim threats and violence in reaction to the cartoons, Michelle Malkin asks, "What Does The Left Have To Say?"

Short answer: Not very much.

That's no surprise.

The Danes right now just don't meet the left's criteria for support.

But if the Danes ever become very anti-American, the left will be there "in solidarity."

Copenhagen might even get visits from folks like George Galloway, Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn.

No blogging today, Saturday, Feb. 4

Folks,

There'll be no posting today as I'm traveling.

Posts will resume by tomorrow, Sunday.

Thanks for your understanding.

John

The Churchill Series - Feb. 3, 2006

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

Reader's Note: In all previous series posts, any relevance to the day’s news was coincidental. That's not the case with today's post. - John

On May 23, 1937 the editor of The Times of London, Geoffrey Dawson, complained in a letter to a friend:

I should like to get going with the Germans. I simply cannot understand why they should apparently be so much annoyed with The Times at this moment.

I spend my nights in taking out anything which I think will hurt their susceptibilities and in dropping in little things which are intended to soothe them.

Dawson and The Times' appeasement of Nazis was typical of what most European journalists and newspapers were doing then.

A notable exception was a young Hungarian Jew, Emery Reves. A month before Dawson wrote his letter, Reves founded in Paris a small press service meant to promote democratic values and counter the increasingly strident and violent Nazis. He contacted Churchill and offered to publish him.

Churchill welcomed the offer. By 1937 most European papers would no longer publish his descriptions of precisely what the Nazis were doing or his calls for nations to unite and oppose them.

At first, Reves found twenty-six papers which agreed to run Churchill's columns. But they came under pressure, and gradually their numbers dwindled.

Reves traveled throughout Europe trying to persuade editors and publishers to run Churhill's columns. That took great courage as by then the Nazis were using kidnappings, beatings and murder to intimidate journalists.

By May 6, 1939 Reves was forced to write Churchill and tell him his columns were no longer allowed to appear in Poland, Romania or Greece "through fear of Germany." It was the high season of appeasement: Munich and "peace in our time."

The "peace" was brief. Soon Poland was invaded and defeated. Romania allied with Germany. Greece began to prepare for an invasion it now knew was sure to come. The Allies’ western front was collapsing. The Nazis invaded and occupied Norway and Denmark. And America's Ambassador to The Court of St. James, Joseph P. Kennedy, like many other well-informed people, had decided democracy was finished in Europe.

In the midst of all that, early on the evening of May 10, 1940, Churchill received a brief phone call. The King wished him to come to Buckingham Palace.

It had been a year and four days since Reves had written his letter.

Reves survived the war. Churchill made sure Reves became one of the chief editors and publishers of his WW II memoirs.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (pgs. 575-619, 864)

On MSM and the cartoons: This Prof has it right

Cori Dauber is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies (and of Peace, War, and Defense) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She blogs at Rantingprogs.Today she posts, And Then There Are Those Choosing to Fold.

If we were debating the wisdom of printing cartoons offensive to a religious group, and that were the only issue on the table, that would be one thing, but as soon as violence is threatened, and the government of a liberal democracy is pressured to bring a free press to heel, then the nature of the debate changes, fairly dramatically.

Then it is all about those who value a free press standing up.

Or, in the case of CNN, sitting down.

Yes, trying not of offend through responsible journalism is a nice thing.

Right up until people think that threatening violence and kidnappings are a way to stop the press. Then the press must demonstrate that such threats do not work.

We aren't talking about kiddie porn here, and although the press keeps talking over and over and over about the fact that one cartoon showed Mohammed with a bomb for a turban, most of the cartoons were not demeaning "caricatures" or attempts to offend through sarcastic renditions, they were nothing more than cartoonists' renditions. (Of course, CNN doesn't really have a history of standing up against the demands of Arab governments.)

ABC, by the way, noted that frightened Europeans were leaving Gaza, but didn't bother to mention that was due to specific threats -- to kidnap Europeans -- not their own paranoia.

And meanwhile, while we all celebrated the bravery of the French paper that stood in solidarity with the Danes and the rights of a secular society, the paper's editor got sacked.

Again, I can fully understand why Muslims would be offended by these cartoons. There have been several artistic (more like "artistic") images of late targeting Christianity that I was none too fond of. The issue now, however, has moved far beyond the wisdom of printing the cartoons originally. The issue now is how an offended community should respond, and how we should respond when a free press is threatened.

Because make no mistake, when mass violence is threatened against the press, when pressure is placed against governments to get them to pressure the press, when economic pressure is brought to bear, then at the very least there has to be a tremendous fear that self-censorship with result the next time, not just at the publication where this started, but at every publication, at the very least in Europe. The situation is intolerable. Because if these publications do not stand up now there is the risk that coverage of any issue sensitive to the Muslim community may start to be trimmed.

Dauber has a lot more to say here. It's worth reading.

A few of my thoughts:


Self-censorship at a newspaper in and of itself is not necessarily bad. What's being censored and why need to be weighed.

To engage in an economic boycott, singly or by a group, is an important right all of us should have. So GM no longer advertises in the LA Times. Maybe the LA Times will change; maybe it won't. Well, that's democracy. If Muslims want to boycott Danish products they should be as free to do that as Americans should be to boycott French products.

But physical violence or its threat directed at the press is intolerable in a democracy. We must all stand against that. And MSM news organizations should join with us by demonstating they're not intimidated. Publish those cartoons, WaPo, CNN, NYT and the rest.

Readers, what do you think?

Dauber's post is here.

Hat Tip: Mike Williams

The New Republic still loves Ted Kennedy. But Kerry?

The New Republic online has a story written by Michael Crowley on Sen. John Kerry and his Alito filibuster (subscription required). It begins:

Moments before Monday's vote on whether to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, John Kerry was speaking to a near-empty Senate chamber. In his typical stentorian fashion, Kerry was arguing for a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee, an effort the Massachusetts senator had single-handedly initiated a few days earlier to the open chagrin of fellow Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. "What could possibly be more important than this?" asked Kerry, who stood alone amid a sea of empty desks.

But Kerry's plea for relevancy didn't cause much of a stir until his Massachusetts colleague and filibuster partner, Ted Kennedy, rose to unleash a bellowing anti-Alito stemwinder. With a reddening face and hoarse voice, Kennedy waved his arms and smacked his podium with his open hand.

The commotion caused a crew of usually blasé reporters to scurry from their workstations and into the Senate press balcony to watch. "There is nothing that's more important than the vote we cast on the Supreme Court, except sending young Americans to war!" Kennedy thundered. When the old lion's mighty lungs finally ceased ...

There's more, but it's hardly worth reading. Mostly, it's "old news."

Who doesn't know that liberals at The New Republic and elsewhere cheer whenever their "old lion" roars out "anti-(whomever, whatever) stemwinder(s)."

That liberals cheer Sen. Kennedy is a major reason why he keeps roaring his stemwinders, which most thoughtful people find reckless, abusive of Senate committee witnesses, and eerily reminiscent of the late Sen. Joe McCarthy's "stemwinders."

The other part of Crowley's story tells us that Sen. Kerry's failed filibuster attempt didn't endear him to his fellow Senate Democrat colleagues.

But Kerry's Senate Dem colleagues haven't been fond of him for a long time. In early 2003 when he looked like a sure shot for his party's presidential nomination, not a single Democrat Senator except "the old lion" was willing to endorse Kerry's candidacy.

If I'm not mistaken it was well into 2004, and after Kerry had sown up enough delegate commitments to assure him the nomination, before his Dem colleagues began endorsing him.

By 2003 Kerry had served 19 years in the Senate; and his colleagues knew him well.

Message to the New Republic: Serve up something new or interesting

The Churchill Series - Feb. 2, 2006

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

November 8,1895.

Churchill is on board Cunard's RMS Etruria and nearing the end of his first trans-Atlantic crossing.

How did he like the crossing?

He wrote his mother:

I do not contemplate ever taking a sea voyage for pleasure, and I shall always look upon journeys by sea as necessary evils which have to be undergone in the carrying out of any definite plan. ...

(Although the weather gave some) bad moments we were never seasick. ...

There are no nice people on board to speak of - certainly none to write of. ...

There is to be a concert on board tonight at which all the stupid people among the passengers intend to perform and the stupider ones to applaud. The days have seemed very long & uninteresting.

The next day Etruria sailed through the Narrows into New York harbor. To starboard Churchill could see Brooklyn, where his mother, Jennie Jerome, was born and grew up. Directly ahead was Manhattan. A few hours later Churchill set foot in America for the first time.

Jennie had arranged for her son to stay at the home of one of New York's most influential citizens, Bourke Cockran. Years later, Churchill would say of him,” I have never seen his like, or in some respects his equal."

On Churchill's first night in America, Cockran hosted a glittering dinner in his honor. There's no record of any of the guests offering to perform a concert for the others.
__________________________________________________
Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: Youth, 1874 - 1900. (pgs. 256-259)

Raleigh News & Observer bias watch

The liberal trending left Raleigh News & Observer tells readers there's no bias in its news columns. The people who control the news at The N&O claim the paper is "fair and accurate."

Well, if you regularly read The N&O, a McClatchy Co. paper, please consider the following questions. You needn't give exact answers; best estimates will do.

How often have you read in The N&O that Judge Samuel Alito is a "conservative." Compare that with how often you've read that Sens. Kennedy, Durbin, Schumer, Biden, and Leahy are "liberals?"

The N&O often told you Judge Alito, while a student at Princeton, joined a group Sen. Kennedy and others said was discriminatory in its treatment of women.

In the midst of his attacks on Alito for his college membership in that group, Kennedy was revealed to be a current member of an exclusive private club, The Owl, which bars women from membership. Kennedy joined The Owl more then 50 years ago. Do you recall The N&O telling you about Kennedy and The Owl?

How often did N&O news stories use terms such as "extremist," "threat to women," and "racist" in regard to Judge Alito, either as part of a quote or part of the news story's background text?

How often did The N&O mention alongside its "extremist," "threat to women," and "racist" reporting the fact that The American Bar Association rated Judge Alito Well Qualified to serve as a Supreme Court justice? Or that Well Qualified is the ABA's highest rating? Or that the award was made by a unanimous vote of the committee which reviewed Alito's credentials?

The N&O tells you it's “fair and accurate?”

Can you recall the last time you believed that? Or that it has no news bias agenda?

Thank you for considering the questions.

Time and place and limits

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders is a voice for reason in an area where political discourse is particularly strident and extreme.

Today, Saunders says some things I agree with and one I don’t. Let’s take a look:

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her beloved son, Casey, in the Iraq war, and for that she has my sympathy.

But losing your son in a war doesn't give you license to violate House decorum, as she did by wearing a t-shirt (reading: "2,245 Dead. How many more?") before President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

It also doesn't grant you special wisdom on foreign relations in South America. If it did, Sheehan would not have let herself be embraced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. (After which Sheehan praised Chavez. - JinC)

While supporters say Sheehan's loss gives her credibility, I don't see antiwar types changing their tune after listening to parents of slain vets who support the war. So her words don't change my mind, not when she talks like a little girl.

Worse, Sheehan feeds the conceit of many Bay Area war protesters -- that they are brave warriors risking their safety and the wrath of the Bushies as they protest the war.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., obviously buys into that conceit. Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the address, issued a statement Wednesday that asked, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?"

Ditto Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who told The San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery."
…

Woolsey and Stark help make my point about “strident” and “extreme” political discourse. Saunders goes on to report:

It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''…

Saunders makes Sheehan an offer I’m sure she’ll refuse:

If Sheehan wants to fight for First Amendment rights, she might want to stand up for The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church.

The group paid to put up billboards on BART that ask the question, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Abortion-rights activists defaced and tore down billboards -- squelching the message of a dissenting voice in the Bay Area. Suzanne ''Sam'' Joi, a member of Code Pink, which has hosted many Sheehan events, told The Chronicle: ''I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Liberals and leftists usually have a hard time understanding that others are supposed to have a little freedom, too. Recall that during the 2004 Republican convention in New York demonstrators marched to Fox News' offices carrying “Shut the Fox up” banners. Did any of the liberal news organizations editorialize on "this latest chilling effort to silence the news media?”

Saunders ends with this:

Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had allowed Sheehan to stay for the speech in her t-shirt. I think she would have chased a few moderate voters into the pro-Bush column. But that could happen anyway. Americans have to notice when a friend of Hugo Chavez bemoans that she was denied free speech -- when she never seems to stop talking.

I’m glad the police removed Sheehan. I think SOTU shouldn’t become an opportunity for every extremist member of congress to hand tickets to other extremists who will disrupt the speech.

There are times and places for most everything; and times and places when certain things shouldn't be allowed.

SOTU is not the time and place for screaming reckless charges at the President and government. We ought to observe ourselves and demand from others a certain amount of respect and decorum in dealing with our political leaders and our government. Isn't that something Dallas and Oklahoma City were supposed to have taught us?

Saunders column is here.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Malkin has more on the infamous Toles' cartoon

Yesterday, Michelle Malkin linked to a copy of the infamous Washington Post cartoon by Tom Toles ridiculing a quadruple amputee soldier in a hospital bed. You can view it here. She also included a copy of a letter from the chairman of the joints chiefs and all the service chiefs condemning Toles shameless cartoon.

Today, Malkin notes The Post has published the chiefs’ letter and links to it.

There's been no word from The Post as to why it would ridicule a service man who had lost four limbs serving his country. Doesn’t The Post realize service men and women defend The Post; and it possible for The Post to publish and earn a nice profit?

We'll keep following what happens. Let's hope The Post somehow develops enough decency to issue an apology.

The Churchill Series - Feb. 1, 2006

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

For most of World War II, the noted Oxford historian Isaiah Berlin served in the Foreign Office; assigned to the British Embassy in Washington, where he wrote dispatches assessing current American political and social matters.

Churchill became a regular and admiring reader of Berlin's dispatches. He told aides if ever Berlin was in England, he wanted to meet him.

The Prime Minister's wish was swiftly passed on to Foreign Office staffers and others.

Not long afterwards, word came back to Churchill's aides that Berlin was indeed in England. They arranged an invitation for him to join a luncheon the PM would be hosting at 10 Downing Street. On the seating plan, Berlin was placed close to Churchill.

Now, readers, our story comes to one of those "bumps in the road."

Not for the first time, eager government staffers here, there and in other departments didn't get it all quite right. Which is why a surprised and honored Irving Berlin received a luncheon invitation just days after arriving in England with a USO show.

Author Stefan Kanfer tells about the luncheon:

Berlin showed up at Number 10. The PM addressed him as Professor and grilled him about the progress of the war.

Bewildered, the composer answered in monosyllables, until a frustrated Churchill gave up and turned to the guest on his left.

Later, (Churchill) commented: “Berlin’s like most bureaucrats. Wonderful on paper, but disappointing when you meet them face to face.”

Perhaps the aides later comforted each other with something like, "Simple enough mistake. Both I. Berlin, you know."
__________________________________________________________________________
Stefan Kanfer, "The Americanization of Irving Berlin." City Journal (Spring, 2002)

Bloggers expose WaPo failures on study story

Did you read about that now debunked "study" the Washington Post reported on in "rah-rah" terms?

According to The Post, two researchers found liberal Democrats were less racists than you know who. The way The Post reported it, the study sounded very scientific.

But The Post didn't tell its faithful readers the "researchers" were liberal Democratic activists. Or that serious researchers refer to the study's methodology as "soft science," which is a polite way of saying the "results" tell us more about the "researchers" than the subjects.

But before you knew it, GAZOOM!! The bloggers! A truth attack!

Michelle Malkin led the charge, exposing the "researchers" liberal and methodological biases.

Here in North Carolina, David Boyd joined the charge, and added his own useful contribution.

Thanks, Michelle and David.

And if you have time for a question: When do you think lib Dems will realize bloggers are making it a lot harder for them to fool people?

This general wants to be president. That's scary.

Retired General Wesley Clark, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, said on Fox last night after the SOTU:

CLARK: Well, you know, we’re not going to go down, I’ve hope that we’ve gotten over this kicking down the doors and roughing up the women (in Iraq) that some people said that we did some of over(sic) there.

"(S)ome people said we did" might not be good enough evidence for you and me , but it's just fine with General Clark, who's eager to repeat the charges and, of course, "supports the troops."

His friends say Clark still wants to be President. Scary thought.

Even more scary thought. Tens of millions of Democrats would vote for him while most of MSM cheered them on.

Even much more scary thought. Most of those Democrats and MSMers don't seem to care that Clark's "some people said" remarks are a great comfort and aid to the people trying to kill American troops.

SOTU camera pans and Hillary's smirk

During SOTU video coverage JinC commentators noticed, among other things:

”(W)hen the president said "we will not wait for them to hit us again.", the camera panned the whole room. Not one democrat stood or applauded.

and:

At the end of the "we will not wait for them to hit us again" line FNC cut to a Hillary reaction shot where she was shaking her head with a goofy smirk.

I said:

It will be interesting to see how MSM "explains" the sit-down Dems.

Well, there isn't much MSM talk about any of that. Silly me. I should have known.

But a new blog – Expose the Left – has video and comments here.

The main page is here. Check it out. It looks like its going to be a fine addition to the blog truth tellers club.

Welcome, Expose the Left.

What do you all think this morning after looking at the vides clips?

The Churchill Series - Jan. 31, 2006

I'm sorry there is no series post today. My work load is heavy.

I will post on Feb. 1.

Thank you for your understanding.

John

Dean in Carolina for "symbolic reasons?"

(Welcome visitors from Polipundit. You may also enjoy this "golden oldie," Bill Buckley's wonderful sense of humor.___________________________________

This is fun.

Following President Bush's SOTU, "the gang" at Fox News discussed the speech and the two parties' strategies.

The Boston Globe's Nina Easton opined that Democrats really want to reach out to mainstream Americans and red states. That's why Democratic Chairman Howard Dean was down here in red state North Carolina tonight. It was "symbolic," Easton said.

The Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes countered, "What's 'symbolic' about that is the Democrats didn't want Dean in Washington tonight."

A question about SOTU camera pans

I just watched President Bush praise Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito confirmations.

During the applause that followed, the camera pan showed only the Republican side of the House.

Immediately after his Roberts and Alito remarks, Bush praised Justice O'Conner's service to America.

More applause, but this time the camera panned both sides of the House.

Why the difference in pans? Coincidence? Or one of those CNN-type "oops, we didn't mean it" moments?

I'm watching Fox but I think the stations use a shared feed.

Can anyone help with my question?

NY Times and AP Alito stories leave out "Well Qualified"

After nomination for The Supreme Court, Judge Samuel Alito received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. "Well-qualified" is the highest rating the ABA awards.

So in lengthy stories reporting today's Alito confirmation vote posted online (3:00 PM, EST), did either the New York Times or the Associated Press mention the ABA's "Well Qualified" rating?

No and no.

And, yes, that's just what you'd expect from liberal news organizations, isn't it.

NY Times' use of political labels in Alito story

Let’s look at the use of the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in today's New York Times online story of the Alito confirmation vote.

Reporter David Stout begins:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., who has been widely praised for his intellect and integrity but both admired and assailed for his conservative judicial philosophy, was confirmed today as the 110th justice in the history of the Supreme Court.

A few paragraphs down we read:

The vote is also a triumph for the conservative movement, whose adherents have longed to tilt the balance of the court to the right.

The Times continues to use the “conservative” label throughout the story. Examples:

Legal scholars have described (Alito’s) jurisprudence as … solidly conservative. …

He’s the second relatively young conservative to ascend to the court in recent months. …

As an undergraduate at Princeton and a student at Yale Law School, he garnered … notice for his conservative views. …

His involvement with a conservative Princeton alumni group became something of an issue. ….

While generous with the “conservative” label, The Times doesn’t apply the “liberal” label to any current political figure. Instead we get this:

Among two Republican supporters of abortion rights, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine voted for Judge Alito, while Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted no, the only Republican to do so.

Snowe and Chafee are staunch Senate liberals.

Why doesn't The Times call them that? And why doesn't The Times describe Alito's confirmation as a defeat suffered by the liberal movement, whose adherents have longed to keep the court tilted to the left?

We know why: The Times wants to convince people that conservatives have an agenda while the liberals who follow its editorial line don't.

And speaking of that, are you finding it increasingly difficult to distinguish between Times' news reporting and its editorials?

If you want to check The Times' story one more time, it's here.

As those Senate Dems remind us

We can all thank Sens. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and the other Dems who voted to filibuster the Alito nomination for at least one thing: They've showed us how they think the Senate should treat a Supreme Court nominee who receives The American Bar Association's highest rating by a unanimous vote of its committee on federal judicial nominees.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 30, 2006

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

On November 14, 1909, Churchill traveled by train to Bristol to deliver a speech. Clementine did not often accompany him on such trips, but she did that day.

As they were walking up the platform toward the exit a young suffragette, Theresa Garnett, rushed at Churchill and began beating him with a whip.

He reached up to protect himself at which point Garnett pushed him toward the edge of the platform. Clementine managed to grab Churchill's coat and pull him back, and prevent him falling off the platform and into the path of the train which was just starting to leave the station.

Others quickly helped the Churchill's subdue Garnett. As police led her away she hollered at Churchill, "You brute, why don't you treat British women properly?"

It was a close call.

I was unable to learn what subsequently happened to Garnett. Does anyone know?

Something else: Clementine always supported Churchill in public, but privately she was strongly in favor of granting women the vote.

The Churchills had plenty to talk about on the train trip home.
______________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (pgs. 209-210)

"Bush, the Divider" stories now?

Sunday's Los Angeles Times published another story in liberal MSM's long-running series, “Bush, the Divider.”

Written by the LA Times' own Washington bureau chief, Ron Brownstein, this latest story ran under the headline:

State of the Union Puts Bush on Collision Course With Himself

Here's Brownstein's lead paragraph:

On the nation's biggest domestic problems, President Bush faces a clear choice as he approaches Tuesday's State of the Union address. He can make a political point. Or he can make progress against the problems. It's probably not possible to do both — unless Bush wants to radically reconfigure his political strategy.

The rest of Brownstein's story is in the same vein here.

Brownstein’s story will appeal to most "Divider" fans. But some fans at least may question why Brownstein and the LA Times ran this latest "Divider" story just now.

That’s because today a majority of Senate Democrats – including Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy - voted to deny an up or down confirmation vote to a Supreme Court nominee The American Bar Association rated Highly Qualified.

Bush is "the Divider?” "He's not willing to reach out?" "He hasn't set a new tone in Washington."

Can any reasonable person fall for any of that today?

Now, we shouldn't expect Brownstein and the rest of liberal MSM to stop writing “Divider” stories. The pay's too good, the work is easy, and they're sure of "puff-puff" interviews on PBS, NPR and the others.

But timing is everything. Brownstein and liberal MSM better watch out or they'll lose people to more reliable news sources, including ones on the Internet.

Oops, you're right, that's already happening.

This sentence belongs in the State of the Union

And it doesn't make much sense to listen in on enemy communications but to hang up when a call is made to someone in the United States.

From Michael Barone's column, Stuck in the 70s.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series - Jan. 29, 2006

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

During late January and early February, 1932, Churchill was on a speaking tour in America. He warned of "communism and the disintegrating forces of a disunited Europe."

He argued that Britain and America should ally to keep order in the world. "Why should we not frankly recognize that there must be some source of doctrine and authority to rescue nations from confusion?"

Quite apart from the political controversy his remarks engendered, it took physical courage for Churchill to stand before his audiences. He knew there were a number of plots by Asian Indian extremists to assassinate him.

Host cities went to great lengths to protect his life . Detroit, for example, assigned a special detail of 12 detectives to accompany him while he was in the city. Another dozen plainclothes officers were in the audience when he spoke while many uniformed police officers watched the lecture hall.

Churchill was stoned twice during the tour; and in one case an armored car was put at his disposal. But he completed the tour, having refused to cancel any engagement in the face of threats.
________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 136-139)

When Maureen Dowd and Ted Kennedy question

Maureen Dowd questioning the President's honesty is like

Ted Kennedy questioning your club membership.

The "clients from hell" find an attorney

The Powerline.com bloggers are outstanding attorneys.

Today, one of them, Paul Mirenkoff, posts "The clients from hell:"

All attorneys have had them, clients who take the fun out of practicing law. One sub-species is the client with a losing case who can't understand why you're not cleaning the other side's clock.
...
Recall the story about the client who asked John Roberts how he could have lost a case in the Supreme Court 9-0, to which Roberts replied "because there are only nine Justices."

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have their own clients from hell -- the juvenile left-wing of their party.

Mirenkoff then tells us more about the "clients from hell," even naming an attorney who was so eager to represent those clients, he cancelled his ski vacation.

And who was that?

Hint: He owns 5 large homes, 3 SUVs, travels in private jets and was The Sierra Club's "environmental presidential candidate" in 2004.

Bonus hint: There are lots of stories about him pushing to the front of restaurant lines and asking the person in charge, "Do you know who I am?"

You really didn't need the bonus hint, did you?

Anyway, Mirenkoff tells us more about Senator Kerry, "the opportunistic and mildly disreputable lawyer emerging from the shadows (or in this case the ski slopes)," and his "clients from hell" right here.

I ended up laughing. I bet you will, too.

Powerline's "The silence of the Times"

Don't miss today's Powerline post "The silence of the Times." It begins:

Last night at the end of his long post "Ahabs everywhere," John took a look at the New York Times article by Eric Lichtblau and Adam Liptak purporting to assess the Bush administration's argument for the legality of the NSA surveillance program.

John notes the article's failure to come to terms with the case law unanimously recognizing the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, let alone the international surveillance at issue in the NSA program.(bold added)

Further on there's this:

Like John, I think that the administration's NSA surveillance program as described by the president, the vice president, the Attorney General, and General Hayden is legal. I don't think it's a close question, though I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.

What is clearly illegal, however, in my view and the view of everyone involved in the Times story disclosing the existence of the NSA surveillance program, are the leaks that led to the story. The illegality of the leaks is precisely why the "nearly a dozen current and former government officials" who leaked the story to James Risen and Eric Lichtblau in connection with the original December 16 story demanded and received anonymity from the Times.(bold added)

Powerline has much more to say.

I'll add this. It think the leakers should go to jail; and so should all those at The Times involved in the story. The Times Co. should be hit with a large fine. By large I mean in the hundreds of millions.

I don't care how smart you think you are or how much you hate our President or our government.You have no right to publish classified information that will help America's enemies attack us.

"Don't miss" is an overused term. But for this Powerline post it fits

The Churchill Series - Jan. 29, 2006

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

Churchill's autobiography, My Early Life , published in 1930, ends with the words: "...until September, 1908, when I married and lived happily ever afterwards."

That Clementine and Winston loved one another, there's no doubt. But "happily ever after?" Not always.

For instance, in 1909 the recently married Clementine tried to get her husband to pay attention to bills that were mounting. There wasn't money to pay them. They were living beyond their means. They needed to talk.

Churchill paid no attention.

Finally, a desperate Clementine took a diamond necklace Churchill's aunt had given her as wedding present and pawned it to pay some bills.

That got Churchill's attention. He rushed to the shop to retrieve it, but he was too late. Someone had already purchased it.

There were other problems. Churchill gambled all his life. Clementine worried about that for years.

Clementine was "early to bed and early to rise." He kept Churchill hours.

She would often get a message telling her Churchill was bringing friends home in an hour or so for dinner. He didn't understand why the short notice should be a problem. All Clementine had to do was "put plenty of onions in an Irish stew."

In future posts, we'll talk more about their marriage.

Meanwhile, this understatement: Clementine was a remarkable woman without whom Churchill would never have been the Churchill we know.
_____________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill, Visions of Glory (pgs. 395-403)

Kerry for President

of Switzerland.

Maureen Dowd victim of truth attack

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd was in the middle of explaining how when former President Clinton told a lie it wasn't really a lie because we all knew it was a lie whereas when President Bush ....

Well, you get where Dowd was going.

In the midst of Maureen's - "All my best, Bill" - she got hit with a truth attack. Her own words were fired at her. Ouch!

Michelle Malkin did it in a post here. Don't miss it.

Malkin has the video of MoDo and then flings Dowd's own words back at her.

Raleigh N&O silent on Hillary's poll numbers

Most MSM news organizations aren't giving much attention to recent Gallup poll results concerning how Americans feel about Sen. Hillary Clinton's becoming President. Here in North Carolina, the liberal trending left Raleigh News & Observer has been totally silent on the results.

So you're telling yourself the results were bad for Hillary. You're right.

Here's some of what the Jan. 25 New York Post reported:

Most American voters now say there's no way they'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008 — while just 16 percent are firmly in her camp, a stunning new poll shows.

The Gallup/CNN poll found that 51 percent say they definitely won't vote for Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008, another 32 percent might consider it, and only 16 percent vow to back her.

That means committed anti-Hillary voters outnumber pro-Hillary voters by 3-1.

There's more here.

The results are indeed stunning. They were surely noticed and talked about by the Democrats who make the news decisions at The N&O.

The N&O's decision to date to tell readers nothing about Clinton's disastrous poll numbers is understandable given the papers political orientation.

And I would accept that if the paper admitted in was essentially a Democratic Party paper or an opinion journal.

But The N&O continues to tell readers and advertisers it's a fair and accurate newspaper that just wants to bring readers information so they can be better informed citizens. Exec. editor for news, Melanie Sill, claims the paper is free of news bias.

Really? The paper still hasn't told readers about Sen. Ted Kennedy's more than half-century long membership in The Owl Club, which denies women membership.

Kennedy held Owl membership even as he railed and berated Judge Samuel Alito for joining for a brief period while a student at Princeton a club Kennedy feels didn't respect women the way the way he feels a club should. Or something like that.

I find it impossible to believe The N&O is what it says it is: fair and accurate.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 27, 2006

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

It's an amusing exchange. I bet you know of it:

George Bernard Shaw telegrammed Winston Churchill just prior to the opening of his latest play: "Have reserved two tickets for first night. Come and bring a friend if you have one."

Churchill wired back, "Impossible to come to first night. Will come to second night, if you have one."

Amusing, yes, but I'm not sure it ever really happened. A number of reliable sources don't mention it, while most unreliable sources do.

But I do have confidence in what follows.

The cartoonist David Low said:

"Churchill is one of the few men I have met who... give me the impression of genius. Shaw is another. It is amusing to know that each thinks the other is much overrated!"

By October, 1950 Shaw and Churchill would no doubt have agreed that the public was low rating them both. Shaw was then often ridiculed by critics while Churchill was struggling to regain enough public confidence to assure him a return to the Prime Minister's office.

In those circumstances, Churchill learned that Shaw had been hospitalized. He sent him flowers and a warm note. Shaw sent back a copy of his newest book, Sixteen Half Sketches, along with a note in which he said:

You need only read (a bit of it) as you and I are officially classed as ignoramuses."

________________________________________________________
For the Low quote see The Churchill Centre, Contemporaries. (Here and scroll down)

For the exchange of notes ending with "ignoramuses" see Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churhcill: Young Stateman. (p. 1)

Here's Al Gore on Canada's election and new PM

Americans have grown used to former Vice President Al Gore’s long, rambling, venomous speeches attacking people and organizations he doesn’t like. Typically, Gore begins by calling someone “dishonest” or “dangerous.” Then it gets worse.

While Gore remains popular with the “Democratic base,” most Americans have tuned him out. Even liberal MSM news organizations now pretty much ignore him.

That may help explain why Gore decided his latest screed would include an attack on the recent Canadian election process and warnings to our Canadian neighbors about their new prime minister, Stephen Harper.

Gore may have reasoned that Canadians, not as familiar with him as Americans, would be more likely to listen to him instead of rolling their eyes and clicking the remote.

Anyway, here's some of his latest, Gore accuses big oil of bankrolling Tories:

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore has accused the oil industry of financially backing the Tories and their "ultra-conservative leader" to protect its stake in Alberta's lucrative oilsands.

Canadians, Gore said, should vigilantly keep watch over prime minister-designate Stephen Harper because he has a pro-oil agenda and wants to pull out of the Kyoto accord -- an international agreement to combat climate change.

"The election in Canada was partly about the tar sands projects in Alberta," Gore said Wednesday while attending the Sundance Film Festival in Utah.

"And the financial interests behind the tar sands project poured a lot of money and support behind an ultra-conservative leader in order to win the election . . . and to protect their interests."

You can read the rest here.

Every time I hear Gore I’m reminded how glad I am he lost the Florida election. Imagine him in the White House!

Charles Krauthammer: "Marcel, My Brother"

Most of us know Charles Krauthammer as an informed, clear-thinking Washington pundit whose columns help us separate political chaff and wheat.

Today, Krauthammer provides something different: a beautifully written, poignant memorial to his brother, Marcel.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series - Jan. 26, 2006

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

Some recent posts have been long or dealt with the sad years of Churchill's decline.

Tonight's post is brief and concerns only trivia.

But it's trivia interested people often ask about.

His favorite whiskey? Johnnie Walker Red.

Brandy? Hine.

Champagne? Pol Roger.

Cheers.

O dear, look what Republicans are doing now

An Associated Press story carries this headline:

Senate GOP Seeks to Force Vote on Alito

The AP’s story makes clear the headline isn’t just another of those “tabloid grabs” most MSM newspapers are using as part of their campaigns to win back former readers who’ve moved on to other news sources.

The AP provides plenty of information to help us realize Senate Republicans are driving to "force (a) vote" on Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination despite the opposition of many Senate Democrats to such a vote.

The AP tells us, for example, of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s efforts to convince his Democratic colleagues to support a filibuster. We're told Senators such as Durbin and Sarbanes support a filibuster. And there's more.

But for all of that, The AP never tells us why Republicans want to, as The AP puts it, "Force (a) Vote on Alito."

Without information from The AP, I'm left to rely on my own news sources. They claim Republicans are basing their drive for a vote on portions of a document called The Constitution.

There's no word yet on whether or not Sen. Kennedy would drop his plans for a filabuster in exchange for the Bush administration agreeing to make public a copy of The Constitution.

Kennedy is said to be considering the matter "while relaxing with friends at the Cape."

NY Times' earnings drop

The Associated Press reports on the latest earnings figures for The New York Times Co.

The New York Times Co. said Tuesday its fourth-quarter earnings fell 41 percent from the same period a year ago, weighed down by charges for staff reductions and an accounting change.

The Times, which also publishes The Boston Globe and the International Herald Tribune, earned $64.8 million or 45 cents per share in the three months ending in December, compared to $110.2 million or 75 cents per share a year ago.

The “staff reductions and an accounting change” explanations were highlighted by The Times Co.

But if you read further into the story, you learn there were also very significant advertising revenue drops in major areas of The Times' media empire.

The revenue drops deserved more attention than The AP gave them. They’re certainly getting attention on Wall Street, where The Times Co (sym. – NYT ) stock price has fallen more than 30% in the last year. See, for example, a Forbes.com article, "Gurus Dump Gray Lady, Buy Energy Spider".

After chocolate, Mayor Nagin has a whine

Betsy Newmark posts on New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s recent whine over criticism he’s received for a string of - to put it kindly - “foot in mouth” comments. Nagin’s whine includes:

"I don't get what all the fuss was about when I talked about New Orleans being a chocolate city. I mean, I understand the frustration with my 'God' comments. Maybe I went a little overboard. But Chocolate City? Come on."

The post contains a number of “The Best of Mayor Nagin” quotes. She ends with an excellent question.

Take a look at Betsy's post here, and decide how you’d answer her question

Steyn’s take on Canada’s next prime minister

In today’s Wall Street Journal Mark Steyn discusses Monday’s Canadian election and offers his take on where he thinks the new prime minister, Stephen Harper, will lead the country. Here some of what he says:

Mr. Harper, the incoming prime minister, will not be "George Bush's new best friend" -- that's a more competitive field than John Kerry and Jimmy Carter think. But at the very least a Harper government won't rely on reflexive anti-Americanism as the defining element of Canadian identity.
…
Stephen Harper (will) move the country incrementally. On the environment, his views are compatible with Mr. Bush, John Howard and now Tony Blair: That's to say, if "climate change" is a problem, Kyoto's not the answer to it.

On missile defense, the Conservatives will string along with Washington because it's the easy option and we'll be covered by it anyway: Even Canadians aren't prepared to argue that, if there's something headed toward Winnipeg or Montreal, we'd rather the Americans minded their own bloody business and didn't tell us about it.

But it's a good gauge of the deterioration in U.S.-Canadian relations that a quintessential piece of postmodern, humbug multilateralism -- an issue that required Canada to be minimally supportive without being helpful, at no political cost and in return for some lucrative contracts for northern defense contractors -- was whooped up by the Liberals into a big scare about Washington's plans for the "weaponization of space."

On missile defense, Mr. Harper will be more down to earth in every sense.

There’s much more, all of it here and laced with Steyn’s wry humor.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 25, 2006

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

A previous post described the April 9, 1963, White House ceremony at which Churchill was awarded honorary American citizenship. Age and ill health forced Churchill to remain at his London home, but he watched the ceremony via live satellite transmission.

The following day Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, a friend and colleague who had served in both of Churchill governments, sent him this warm and revealing letter:

Dear Winston,

I gave a dinner last night for General Lemnitzer. He used to be American Deputy to Field Marshal Alexander in the Mediterranean Campaign and is now the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Field Marshals Alexander and Harding, Lord Mountbatten and General Strong all came.

We and others present unanimously agreed to send you a message recalling the days when we worked together under your leadership.

We wished also to express our delight at your versatility, which allows you to combine being a loyal British subject with being a good United States’ citizen.

Yours ever,

Harold Macmillan

It’s well known that in his last years Churchill’s memory faded and he lost interest in current events. Nonetheless, its jarring as well as poignant to realize Macmillian felt he needed to tell Churchill who was “now the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.”

We’ve also been told that until near the very end Churchill held on to much of what had always been one of his greatest strengths: a sense of humor. Macmillan’s closing sentence indicates he agreed with that assessment.

Blogger will shut down. Posting light tonight

Folks,

The Blogger system will shut down for "repairs" at 4 PM Pacific time. They say just a little while, but one never knows. Also, sometimes when Blogger repairs things get worse for a while.

I'll plan to try to post The Chruchill Series tonight before midnight. Otherwise, no posting until tomorrow.

But there's a lot in the pipe so come back tomorrow afternoon.

John

How did The Washington Post miss all those Canadians?

Yesterday's Canadian election confirmed what polls and pundits had been reporting: Millions of voters strongly favored the Conservatives and were disgusted by the Liberal's stumbling social policies and massive corruption.

But The Washington Post apparently couldn't locate any of those voters. At least, none were quoted in its post-election story, "Canadians Move Right, Elect New Leadership."

The Post only quoted one person who even claimed to have voted Conservative. And it told its readers said she did so “reluctantly:”

"I think we have to give it a try. But I am very afraid that it will be too far right," said Florence Koven, 72, emerging from the polls after voting -- reluctantly, she said -- for the Conservative Party. "The unknown always concerns you. Mr. Harper (the Conservative leader) says he is a changed man; we'll see how much he has changed."

Yes indeed, all of us on both sides of the border need to be sooo careful about voting for Conservatives. And if they win, we must always hope they change once in office.

The Post's management continues to insist the paper doesn't have a liberal bias. What's more, the editors tell us that when covering an election, their reporters find out what voters are saying and tell us.

Well, if that's the case, how did The Post miss all the Canadians who would have been happy to tell its reporters: "We're sick and tired of the Liberals and glad the Conservatives are going in?"

The Churchill Series - Jan. 24, 2006

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

On January 24, 1965, Churchill died after having suffered a massive stroke twelve days before.

When he heard the news, France's President Charles de Gaulle wrote a condolence letter to the Queen. Of the man with whom he had frequently quarreled during the war, de Gaulle said:

In the great drama he was the greatest of all.

Clement Attlee, as leader of Labour, and Churchill, as leader of the Conservatives, had often sparred across the Commons aisle. Churchill once called Attlee a "sheep in sheep's clothing;" another time, "a modest man with much to be modest about." Attlee had bested Churchill in the 1945 General Election, and succeeded him as Prime Minister.

Now Earl Attlee, he spoke in the House of Lords of the man who had been his friend as well as political foe:

My Lords, we have lost the greatest Englishman of our time - I think the greatest citizen of the world of our time.

Thirty-five years on, as the 20th century drew to a close, the distinguished commentator Charles Krauthammer considered its horrors and the times when many reasonable people thought it certain that Nazis or Communists would dominate the world. But they were prevented from doing so. Krauthammer asked who had stopped them:

The originality of the 20th surely lay in its politics. It invented the police state and the command economy, mass mobilization and mass propaganda, mechanized murder and routinized terror--a breathtaking catalog of political creativity.

And who is the hero of that story? Who slew the dragon?

Yes, it was the ordinary man, the taxpayer, the grunt who fought and won the wars. Yes, it was America and its allies. Yes, it was the great leaders: Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Adenauer, Truman, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan. But above all, victory required one man without whom the fight would have been lost at the beginning. It required Winston Churchill.

Winston S. Churchill, RIP
________________________________________________________________________
The de Gaulle and Attlee quotes are from Martin Gilbert, Never Despair. (pgs. 1360-1361)

The Krauthammer commentary can be found at The Churchill Centre's Personality of the Century page( Here and then scroll to near the bottom.)