The Churchill Series – Nov. 13, 2006

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

The Blitz began on September 7, 1940. London was bombed for the next consecutive 57 days. The Blitz did not end until May 11, 1941, when a very severe raid killed over 3,000 Londoners.

As you know, The Blitz presented Churchill and the government with enormous and complex problems. Evacuate the children? Yes, but where and with whom would they stay? Families is rural areas were volunteering to take in children but would they be suitable families. Was a family prepared to take in six brothers and sister ranging in age from 2 to 14, two of whom were what were then called "problem children?"

What about parents who refused to send their children to the countryside?

How to you keep public morale high under the extreme duress of daily bombing? How do you convince people that when the "all clear" is sounded, they must not go to their homes to see if they are still standing and their families and neighbors all right, but instead stay at their jobs until their shifts have ended?

And then there was the matter Churchill felt compelled to deal with after almost two weeks of German bombing:

18.IX.40.

Prime Minister to Postmaster-General,

There are considerable complaints about the Post Office service during air raids. Prehaps you will give me a report on what you are doing.

I’ve been accused of making the memo up but you can find it in Churchill’s Their Finest Hour, vol. 2, pg 671 (Houghton Mifflin, 1949)

As for what was done with the children, initially plans were made and orders given for their evacuation to safer areas. Some children even came to the States and lived out the war here.

But there was much resistance to evacuating the children and many problems settling them in new locations. The government soon adopted a “What the parent thinks best; HM's government will help provide options” approach that was followed throughout the remainder of the war.

HERALD SUN SHOCKER

Durham Herald Sun readers had to be shocked this morning when they turned to the editorial page.

Right there below a Bob Ashley editorial was an Other Voices column. H-S readers are used to seeing Other Voices columns on the page opposite the editorial page. Seeing an OV column in “precious” space usually occupied only by editorials was a shocker. But it was only the first.

Shocker two? The OV column was given as much space as the H-S editorial that preceded it.

And what H-S reader would have believed the next shocker?

The OV column was headed :

Nifong’s many victims

WHAT?!!!

Talk about a shocker! Number three was the biggest of all.

For weeks leading up to last Tuesday’s election, Ashley and his H-S “news team” were telling their dwindling but faithful readers that DA Mike Nifong had protected them and the community from wild Duke students and just about everything else bad in the world except maybe this season’s latest flu strain.

But today, less than a week after the H-S’s “campaign reporting” helped elect Nifong, Ashley turned around and gave H-S readers that awful third shock:

Nifong’s many victims

Why? Does Ashley worry that after opening his paper, readers will start snoozing?

Anyway, H-S readers who were awake and alert after reading the H-S’s first two shockers, and were still on their feet after reading the headline, “Nifong’s many victims,” know the headline was followed by a Joseph V. Cheshire column.

Cheshire is lead attorney for David Evans, one of three former Duke lacrosse players indicted following what attorneys across America and millions of citizens view as a series of travesties.

Cheshire's column is a response to remarks the H-S attributed to Durham attorney Kerry Sutton in a H-S post-election story, “Lawyers: Nifong right pick for DA.”

Here first are Sutton’s remarks in full as reported by the H-S:

"I believe the right person won," attorney Kerry Sutton said of the local campaign. "While I disagree with Mike's handling of the lacrosse case, he had a right to take the stance he did, and he is doing his job. If I ever mess up a case myself, I hope people won't judge my entire career based on that case alone."

Sutton, who has done some work for lacrosse rape defendant David Evans and who also represents an unindicted Duke lacrosse player, said she thought outsiders had meddled too much in the district attorney race.

"The fact that people from around the nation put their noses and money into the politics of Durham kind of skewed people's perspectives on what goes on here and what should go on here," Sutton added. "I don't think that's appropriate."

To those remarks, Cheshire responded (excerpts):

As David Evans' attorney, I feel it is my duty to respond to comments attributed to Kerry Sutton. …

[While Sutton] did render substantial assistance to us in the logistics of Evans' surrender, Sutton does not represent Evans, nor is she authorized to speak for him or on his behalf. …

I understand the need for lawyers whose livelihood and clients' fates are often governed by the whim of the elected district attorney to remain as close as possible to that DA no matter what he does.

But it must be noted that Nifong's only "right" and "job" as a prosecutor in this or any other case is to satisfy his oath to see that justice is done. …

Justice is not done in any criminal prosecution when a DA who assumes the role of chief factual investigator and does not bother to talk with the chief prosecuting witness about her allegations to assess her credibility, and instead lets forth a stream of pure speculation about the "facts" of the case to conform to the evolving investigation: speculation that, in fact, contradicts materials in his own case file and sworn statements made by his own investigators and assistants in the investigation.

Those actions are hardly a prosecutor's "right" or "job" as defined by his oath.

Sutton also takes exception to the people from around the country who have taken an interest in this case, who include the parents of the scores of young men whose lives have been unalterably affected by the ongoing miscarriage of justice in this case.
These people are victims of Nifong's actions in the same way that the people of Durham are, and their interest in this case is just as real and proper. …

Cheshire said much more. It’s all here.

I wonder what Attorney Sutton thought when she looked at today’s H-S editorial page and saw not only shockers one, two and three but shocker four as well.

Shocker four, for those of you who don’t get a hard copy of the H-S, is this: Ashley chose to highlight in bold in a sidebar the words Cheshire used as his "hammer of Thor:"

“I understand the need for lawyers whose livelihood and clients' fates are often governed by the whim of the elected district attorney to remain as close as possible to that DA no matter what he does.”

Now there’s an editor playing rough with someone who just appears to have given an H-S reporter the kind of pro-Nifong quote Ashley’s been peddling for weeks.

What’s changed? Does Ashley think the Feds are coming to town to investigate Nifong and his cronies?

Stay tuned. There’s more to be told about this story.

More on The N&O’s Ford

Yesterday I posted, “N&O still for Nifong,” a response to on Raleigh News & Observer’s editorial page editor Steve Ford’s Nov. 12 column, “No gong for Mike Nifong ---Yet.”

A few principal points from my post:

On March 28 The N&O editorialized: Shut down the lacrosse team; the woman, by making her allegations, had engaged in “an act of courage; and echoing DA Nifong’s statement to the court, the N&O said DNA testing “can clear the innocent.”

The N&O’s editorial page was supporting Nifong then, it supported him when the DNA results came back negative and he said, in effect, “So what. We’ll just have a trial anyway;” and it supports Nifong today, which is why Ford was so upset by the Durham DA election results.

Ford was so put out yesterday he actually said :

We have trials to settle such things, and we insist that matters of guilt or innocence be decided according to very specific rules meant to safeguard the rights of both accusers and defendants. What we don't do in this country is decide the merit of criminal charges at the polls.

It seems all of us except Ford know: Of course we don’t decide the merits of criminal charges at the polls which is why a trial(s)of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann could have gone forward if Nifong had lost and a successor DA choose to continue the prosecution.

The Durham DA election, Ford’s opinion to the contrary, was about Durham’s citizens doing what citizens everywhere else in North Carolina can do: vote for the person they think will do the most to give them fairness and justice in the DA’s office.

I said a lot more but let’s move on and take a look at an excellent KC Johnson post today in which he responds to the same Ford column.

KC starts off with a “roll call” of eleven N&O news stories concerning Nifong’s misconduct and travesties that ought to have any self-respecting editor demanding Nifong’s removal from office. Here’s the first of the eleven:

That after Nifong ordered the police to perform a photo lineup that violated Durham procedures in multiple ways, “every choice contained flaws or contradictions . . . The woman recognized 15 players at one viewing but didn’t recognize them at another. She picked out only one player with certainty at both the March and April viewings. He, however, was in Raleigh, not at the lacrosse party. She wrongly identified the player who made a rude comment about a broomstick.” (Neff, October 8)

KC ends his “roll call” with this:

That Duke Law professor James Coleman, after urging appointment of a special prosecutor to handle the case, said, “I don’t think [Nifong is] showing detached judgment. I personally have no confidence in him.” (Blythe and Neff, June 13)

Well, to paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentson: “We know James Coleman. He’s a Duke Law professor we respect. And you, Steve Ford, are no James Coleman.”

A little further on KC says:

Does Ford even read his own newspaper? He does, obviously, although his column suggests his skepticism of its reporting. If a trial occurs, Ford writes, the accuser would “have to explain embarrassing evidence such as the video that supposedly shows her performing an exotic dance at a strip club during the same time frame, just days after the alleged attack, when she was telling doctors and nurses she was in severe pain.” [emphasis added]

There’s a lot more in KC’post which you can read here.

In a few days I’ll say some more about Ford’s continuing support for Nifong.

Michigan Prefers Equality

That’s the lead of Abigail Thernstrom's WSJ op-ed today which begins:

A striking 58% of Michigan voters gave the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative a thumbs up; only three counties voted against it.

The language of the MCRI … amends the Michigan Constitution to "ban public institutions from using affirmative-action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes."

The political and business establishments, pressure groups like the AARP, labor-union leaders, religious spokesmen, the professoriat, the major Detroit newspapers--all were opposed to MCRI. But a substantial majority of ordinary voters were thinking for themselves.

Well, there! It’s happened again. Ordinary voters thinking for themselves. Don't you like that?

How did the MCRI pass if all the smart and powerful people were against it? Thernstrom explains:

Patty Alspach was perhaps a typical supporter. A Democrat, she signed the petition putting the proposition on the ballot. Meanwhile, opponents loudly claimed that the measure was misleading, that voters were being duped, that it should be tossed off the ballot. "I read it," replied Ms. Alpach. "I understood it. I signed it. Now let me vote on it."

While [Ward] Connerly is the father of the civil-rights initiatives, in Michigan his role was that of mentor and fund-raiser; Jennifer Gratz, MCRI's executive director, was in charge.

She'd been the lead plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, one of the University of Michigan cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2003. The Court agreed that race-driven admissions policies were okay as long as they remained a bit subtle--but no naked point system for the color of an applicant's skin.

The drive for the MCRI was launched immediately after the Gratz and Grutter decisions were announced.

Thernstrom describes what happened in Michigan after the court ruling, including why the campaign to ban race preferences was successful. She notes that the president of the University of Michigan has promised to fight the amendment.

But Thernstrom closes with this:

The modern-day survival of racial preferences depends on sympathetic judges willing to spin dubious arguments and ignore widely available data on the pernicious impact of such preferences.

But, this time, the University of Michigan may find itself without judicial recourse. The Supreme Court has never said that universities are constitutionally obligated to institute "diversity" policies. Public universities are funded by taxpayers. And those taxpayers have spoken.

Thernstrom is always worth reading. She has her facts straight and "puts it right out there."

I hope you read her column here.

N&O still for Nifong

Steve Ford is The Raleigh News & Observer’s editorial page editor. While readers are told a board makes N&O editorial decisions, Ford is regarded as its “controlling voice.”

Back on March 28 The Raleigh News & Observer editorialized on “the Duke lacrosse case.” (subscription req'd)

The N&O demanded Duke cancel the Men’s lacrosse season. It praised the woman for “an act of courage” in coming forward and reporting the alleged crimes.

And then there was the matter of the DNA testing.

We now know something we didn’t know on March 28: For days following the alleged gang-rape, the accuser hadn’t been able to provide a reliable ID of even one of her alleged attackers.

How was Nifong to get around that problem? He decided to DNA test all white lacrosse players and hope something turned up positive.

But casting such a broad net has traditionally been questioned, if not outright opposed, by rights groups and bar associations. Many courts won’t grant permission for such broad net “fishing.”

To get past those objections, Nifong offered the court and public what sales people call a “sweetener:” the DNA results will “immediately rule out the innocent.”

The N&O, which in the past has strongly objected to broad net DNA testing, decided that in the Duke lacrosse case it would make an exception and support it. The N&O used Nifong’s “sweetener” when explaining to readers why it was supporting broad net DNA testing :

”DNA testing can help build a case, but it also can clear the innocent. That's a greater good justifying a compromise of the whole group's privacy when lacrosse team members had to report to a crime lab for DNA sampling.”

Well, you know how the DNA results came back; and you know Nifong announced they really didn’t “immediately rule out the innocent” after all; and they’d be a trial for sure.

At the point, The N&O’s editorial board said no more about DNA evidence “clear[ing] the innocent.” Instead, The N&O told readers Nifong was the right man to leave in charge of the case and to prosecute it at trail. The N&O’s editorial page continues to support Nifong to this day.

In his column today, editorial page editor Steve Ford tells readers:

Does it amount to some kind of travesty, then, that Nifong is set to continue as D.A.? Not in my book.

That's not to say anybody should be comfortable with Nifong's performance in the case that has drawn scads of unwanted attention to Durham, Duke University and their uneasy co-existence.

But to throw him out of office on the sole basis of that performance would have had the effect of substituting the judgment of voters for the judgment of jurors. That's no way to settle the question of whether a crime occurred and, if so, who was responsible.

We have trials to settle such things, and we insist that matters of guilt or innocence be decided according to very specific rules meant to safeguard the rights of both accusers and defendants. What we don't do in this country is decide the merit of criminal charges at the polls.

Yes, we have trials and, of course, we don’t decide the merits of criminal charges at the polls.

That’s why, Editor Ford, even if Nifong had lost, the trial(s) of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann could have gone forward if a successor DA choose to continue the prosecution.

The law also permits a reelected DA Nifong to drop all charges at some point or even to do what Duke Law Professor James Coleman has recommended he do: step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over the case.

So the Durham DA election wasn’t about, as Ford says, “substituting the judgment of voters for the judgment of jurors.”

It was about Durham’s citizens doing what citizens everywhere else in North Carolina do: vote for the person they think will do the most to give them fairness and justice in the DA’s office.

Ford’s never had any problem with citizens doing that before. Why does he have a problem with Durham’s citizens doing it last Tuesday?

The answer’s obvious: Ford’s still with Nifong.

Ford supports Nifong today with “the last refuge” argument. Most of you know it by heart: “Mike’s been a fantastic public servant for 27 years. Yes, he spoke too much early on and his handling of the case has been a little ‘slipshod.’ But you can’t throw a man out of office on ‘the sole basis of that performance.’”

It’s hard to judge those 27 years. A lot of what Nifong did then was outside the public spotlight. Most of it was plea bargaining, which many attorneys say is a necessary part of our legal system but also one of its least just.

What about the attorneys who’ve “cut deals” with Nifong, hope to do so in the future and tell us: “We’re lucky to have someone like Nifong?” I listen to them with the proverbial “grains of salt” in mind.

Now the “one case” refuge is another matter. The “one case” began eight months ago. There is much Nifong has done during it that we can easily judge. And what Nifong has done during the last eight months tells us a great deal about what sort of person and public official he is.

On March 27, he used the “players aren’t cooperating” falsehood that first appeared in the N&O’s now discredited March 25 “anonymous interview” story to slime the players. He said he wished someone at the party had “the human decency” to call up and say what happened there.

When Nifong said that, he knew a lot of things we didn’t know then.

Nifong knew that on March 16 the three captains who rented the house where the crimes were alleged to have occurred had answered all police questions, voluntarily signed statements, given DNA samples and in many other ways helped police understand what had really happened that night.

Nifong also knew every one of the 46 players ordered to submit to DNA testing could have appealed the order, including the ones who weren’t even in Durham the night of the alleged crimes. But not one of the 46 exercised his right of appeal.

Do you need a bar association ruling or an N&O editorial to tell you what Nifong was doing on March 27? Or to tell you what he was doing later in the week when he ridiculed the players and their parents for hiring attorneys.

Ridiculing people for hiring attorneys when they’re accused of serious crimes is something the late Senator Joe McCarthy used to do.

And then Nifong went on to ask why the players would need attorneys if they were innocent.

During just that one week in the eight month old case, Nifong lied about the suspect’s cooperation, engaged in blatant McCarthyism and, although an officer of the court sworn to uphold justice, wondered why citizens would exercise their right to counsel if they were innocent.

Nifong’s actions that week may not have meant much to Steve Ford and his editorial board. But for many Durham citizens, Nifong’s actions were “enough.” Regardless of the players’ guilt or innocence, Nifong had already displayed enough contempt for his sworn duties to have lost their votes.

What those citizens have since learned about Nifong’s actions further confirmed their belief that he is unfit to hold the DA’s office. And as the months pasted, thousands of others in Durham came to agree with them.

Back on March 28 The N&O’s editorial was doing its best for Nifong. Today, Steve Ford does his best for Nifong.

Will we ever see an N&O editorial or Steve Ford column that does what’s best for justice and Durham?

Veteran’s Day - Remembrance and Thanks

We’re free because millions have served and sacrificed, even to giving the last full measure.

We remember them all today with gratitude and awe.

And we remember their families who loved and cared for them and endured the separations that are part of military service, including the most painful of all.

Michelle Malkin has a beautiful tribute post that includes links to the background and award ceremony this week at which President Bush awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously to Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham for his heroism in Iraq.

Two great mil blogs - Blackfive and Mudville Gazette - have very nice tributes.

The Churchill Series – Nov. 10, 2006

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

After a long absence from the series, Scotland Yard’s Detective- Inspector Walter Thompson joins us today with an amusing Churchill anecdote from the Blitz.

In case you’re new to the series, Walter Thompson was Churchill’s principal bodyguard for most of the 1920s and 30s. He retired in 1937 and became a greengrocer.

On September 3, 1939, Britain entered the war against Germany and Churchill was aksed to join the government as First Lord of the Admiralty.

The following morning, Thompson received a phone call and heard the familiar voice. He remained with Churchill until the end of the war.

Among many incidents during the Blitz, Thompson recalled the very cold night when Churchill insisted, as he often did, on leaving the safety of the bomb shelter in a building called The Annexe and going onto its roof to watch the German bombing raid.

Churchill had been on the roof for some time when he decided to sit down for a few minutes and smoke a cigar. Thompson was always concerned when Churchill exposed them both to increased risk by being on the roof during a raid. And on this night he was also concerned for Churchill’s exposure to the cold.

Churchill reassured him about the cold. In fact, he said he really felt almost warm.

About that time a sentry came scurrying up to them and asked the PM if he’d mind standing up.

Churchill asked why.

”You are sitting on the chimney, sir. You’re smoking them out below.”

I hope you all have a nice weekend and are back Monday.

John
____________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill’s Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thmposon. (p. 127)










.

Dear Professor Wiegman

Readers’ Note: On Oct. 26 I posted “Why at Duke …”

The post included an email I sent to Duke University Professor Robyn Wiegman.

I’ve not heard from Wiegman so I’m sending her a second email with the first included.

The second email follows. I’ll keep you posted.

John
_______________________________________________

Dear Professor Wiegman:

I’ve not received a response to the email (see below) I sent you on Oct. 26.

Perhaps it dropped off your screen before you could respond.

In any case, I hope you'll respond since the matters raised in the email are, I’m sure you’ll agree, important and have generated considerable interest and discussion on campus, at blogs and, no doubt, elsewhere.

Thank you for your attention to my emails.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com
____________________________________________

(First email sent to Professor Robyn Wiegman on Oct. 26.)

Robyn Wiegman
Margaret Taylor Smith Director Women's Studies
Professor, Women's Studies and Literature

Dear Professor Wiegman:

I hold two degrees from the university and blog as www.johnincarolina.com

In your Chronicle letter of Oct. 25 you write:

“[M]y colleague Steven Baldwin …finds the faculty response to the Duke lacrosse scandal one that warrants their being ‘tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy.’”(bold mine)

But that’s not true, Professor Wiegman.

Baldwin didn’t say anything about "the faculty response." He spoke about responses by some individual faculty members who engaged in certain despicable conduct which he described.

Read Baldwin’s words:

I do not believe that a faculty member publicly describing any student in pejorative terms is ever justified. To do so is mean-spirited, petty and unprofessional, at the very least. The faculty who publicly savaged the character and reputations of specific men's lacrosse players last spring should be ashamed of themselves.

They should be tarred and feathered, ridden out of town on a rail and removed from the academy. Their comments were despicable. I suspect they were also slanderous, but we'll hear more about that later.

Surely you didn't miss the fact that Baldwin's remarks concerned only certain faculty whose conduct he described. Not all faculty, thankfully, engaged in such despicable conduct.

Why did you fail to acknowledge that, and instead say: "Baldwin ...finds the faculty response ...?"

You'll find enlightening the following information from The American Heritage Dictionary of Idions:
"tar and feather"

Criticize severely, punish, as in The traditionalists often want to tar and feather those who don't conform. This expression alludes to a former brutal punishment in which a person was smeared with tar and covered with feathers, which then stuck. It was first used as a punishment for theft in the English navy, recorded in the Ordinance of Richard I in 1189, and by the mid-1700s had become mob practice. The figurative usage dates from the mid-1800s.

On another matter, I'm told that Women's Studies has made no statement condemning the threats of physical violence and death threats hurled by racists on May 18 at Reade Seligmann, both outside the courthouse and within the courtroom before the judge entered.

Is that true?

I'm also told Women's Studies has no plans to honor a group of outstanding women who constitute the only large Duke group who to date publicly acknowledge it was a hoax and have spoken out on behalf of the three wrongly indicted innocent students.

Is it true Women's Studies has no plans to honor the Women's lacrosse team and its coaches?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Greenhouse hypocrisy, anyone?

Washington Post syndicated columnist Robert Samuelson today:

It seems impossible to have an honest conversation about global warming. I say this after diligently perusing the British government's huge report released last week by Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank and now a high-ranking civil servant.

The report is a masterpiece of misleading public relations.

It foresees dire consequences if global warming isn't curbed: a worldwide depression (with a drop in output up to 20 percent) and flooding of many coastal cities. Meanwhile, the costs of minimizing these awful outcomes are small: only 1 percent of world economic output in 2050.

No one could fail to conclude that we should conquer global warming instantly, if not sooner. Who could disagree? Well, me.

Stern's headlined conclusions are intellectual fictions. They're essentially fabrications to justify an aggressive anti-global-warming agenda. The danger of that is we'd end up with the worst of both worlds: a program that harms the economy without much cutting of greenhouse gases.[…]

Samuelson goes on to explain how easy it will be for us to end up with the worst of both worlds. If fact, he may convince you we already have the worst of both worlds. Look what you find further on in his column :

Just last week, the United Nations reported that of the 41 countries it monitors (not including most developing nations), 34 had increased greenhouse emissions from 2000 to 2004. These include most countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. [...]

Is anyone surprised greenhouse emissions are rising in many “countries committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol?”

Samuelson gets into the “whys and wherefores” of emissions' politics and technology. He’s written an awfully good column. I hope you take a look.

The Churchill Series – Nov. 9, 2006

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

With the help of Wikipedia, let’s recall today F. E. Smith, the man Churchill biographers consider to have been his closest friend. I’ve planned the post so we'll end it doing what Churchill and Smith often did when they were together: laughing.

We learn from Wikipedia:

Frederick Edwin Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead, GCSI, PC (12 July 1872–30 September 1930) was a British Conservative statesman and lawyer of the early 20th century. He was a skilled orator, noted for his staunch opposition to Irish nationalism, his wit, pugnacious views, and hard living and drinking.

He is perhaps best remembered today as Winston Churchill's greatest personal and political friend until Birkenhead's untimely death at age 58.

After Birkenhead’s death, Churchill said he’d never once been with him without leaving better informed or wiser on at least one important matter. That’s quite a tribute coming from one of the best informed and wisest men of the time, isn’t it.

Now to the laughter: again from Wikipedia:

About Bolshevism Smith observed:

"Nature has no cure for this sort of madness, though I have known a legacy from a rich relative works wonders."

On Winston Churchill:

"He has devoted the best years of his life to preparing his impromptu speeches." (When Churchill heard the remark he laughed, and afterwards would quote it to others. - JinC)

And in court as a barrister:

Judge: "I have read your case, Mr Smith, and I am no wiser now than I was when I started."

Smith: "Possibly not, My Lord, but much better informed."
________

Judge: "Are you trying to show contempt for this court, Mr Smith?"

Smith: "No, My Lord. I am attempting to conceal it."
_______

Judge: "Have you ever heard of a saying by Bacon — the great Bacon — that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?"

Smith: "Yes, I have. And have you ever heard of a saying of Bacon — the great Bacon — that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?"

Judge: "You are extremely offensive, young man!"

Smith: "As a matter of fact we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it."
__________

Judge: "Mr Smith, you must not direct the jury. What do you suppose I am on the bench for?"

Smith: "It is not for me, your honour, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence."
_________

Smith to witness: "So, you were as drunk as a judge?"

Judge (interjecting): "You mean as drunk as a lord?"

Smith: "Yes, My Lord."

___________________________________________
Smith's Wikipedia biography is here.

Bob Harris has responded

Most people who’ve followed the Duke lacrosse case agree with Duke Law Professor James Coleman: “virtually everything that [Durham DA Mike] Nifong has done has undermined public confidence in the [Duke lacrosse] case.”

So it was no surprise that on Election Day morning, Nifong was still scurrying for votes at a polling station despite being the Democratic Party DA candidate in a county that traditionally votes Democratic by landslide percentages of 70% or more.

When Bob Harris, the popular “voice of the Duke Blue Devils” showed up to vote, Nifong, with TV cameras rolling, saw an opportunity and tried to take it.

But Bob gave Nifong a ‘dust off” and called his “game:”

"This isn't about Duke," Nifong said. "This isn't about Duke at all."

"No," Harris said. "It's about honesty. You're not honest."

Bob always gets the score right, doesn't he?

I posted on Bob’s “broadcast.” So did KC Johnson and Johnsville News.

I also sent Bob an email.

He’s responded with an email that will cheer all of us hoping, praying and working for justice
______________________________________

John,

Thank you for your wonderful email, and especially your blog. I really appreciate your kind comments and the comment posts that followed.

It is really great to know that there are thousands of people just like you who feel exactly the same. I am receiving tons of calls and emails from all over the east coast with 'thank yous' and more.

Keep up the good work. I've book-marked your site and will keep reading it.

Bob
________________________________________________________________

In a day or two I’ll send Bob the threads to my first post and this one so he can read your comments if he hasn’t already done so.

Bob's a great “voice of the Duke Blue Devils.

And it’s great that he’s “receiving tons of calls and emails.”

Add your voice if you haven't already done so.

To The Chronicle: Letter 3

Readers’ Note: On Oct. 27, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published an editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.”

The editorial and its comment thread are here.

Please read them if you haven’t already done so. See also The Chronicle's explanation of how it "writes" editorials.

The Chronicle editorial leveled a number of extremely serious charges at bloggers.

I’m responding to The Chronicle with a series of electronic letters which I’m posting at JinC. Each letter is headed "To The Chronicle" and enumerated. Here are links to Letter 1 and Letter 2.

Letter 3 follows.

John
_________________________________________________

Editorial Board
The Chronicle
Duke University

Dear Editorial Board members:

My first two letters (here and here) were, as you know, direct responses to your Oct. 27 editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.”

I’d planned for this third letter to be an explanation of why you should exculpate me and bloggers like me from your charge that we vilified Durham DA Mike Nifong.

But I want to put that aside for now and instead comment on your November 6 Election Eve editorial, “Cheek for District Attorney,” and your November 8 editorial, “Facing the Reality of Nifong.”

While your Nov. 6 endorsement of Lewis Cheek was no small matter, the editorial has an importance beyond the election.

You took into account and stated clearly issues embedded in the lacrosse case but also vital to Duke and Durham’s futures. For example:

Nifong's handling of the case to date raises a number of questions about his prosecutorial conduct, but also about the general manner in which he carries out his duties as district attorney. […]

Nifong's actions seem to sidestep the legal system, but it also seems that he has taken advantage of the community.

Through his approach to the case and his statements to the press, Nifong utilized an already existing and powerful divide in the Durham community.

This district attorney race is not just about the Duke lacrosse case and it certainly should not be. Durham had the highest homicide rate in North Carolina in 2005 and continues to face a grave gang violence problem.

Your November 8 post-election editorial provided a crisp, informed analysis of the factors at play in the race. It also quite correctly pointed out the many responsibilities a Durham DA faces.

To all of that I found myself agreeing. But I “hit the breaks” when I came to:

Whether or not he chooses to bring lacrosse to trial, we ask Nifong to make his decision out of justice and respect for his own office, not out of political ambition or media pressures.

What you ask of Nifong all reasonable people wish he would do.

But that an intelligent, reasonable group such as yourselves feels compelled to ask a District Attorney to be just and respect his office is really a powerful argument for what Professor James Coleman recommended back on June 12 :

Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong should ask the attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor for the rape case against three Duke lacrosse players and then remove himself and his office from further involvement. This is the only way to restore some degree of public confidence in the handling of the case.

Up to now, virtually everything that Nifong has done has undermined public confidence in the case.

We’ve since learned more about the fraudulent ID procedures that led Coleman to say, “Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.”

We’ve also heard Nifong recently say in court that he’s never discussed the case with the accuser.

And we’ve watched Sgt. Gottlieb do something none of us could do: from two pages of handwritten notes produce months later a typed, detailed, single space, thirty-two page “report” of his investigation.

I end this letter with admiration for your Nov. 6 and 8 editorials, but also wondering why, having affirmed in those editorials so much that is right for the accused, for Duke and for Durham, The Chronicle has not joined with Professor Coleman and many others who believe justice can best be served by the appointment of a special prosecutor.

In a day or two I’ll write a letter responding to your concerns about my treatment of media, and a few days after that I’ll write another addressing your concerns regarding how I’ve treated Duke faculty.

Thank you for you attention to what I’ve written.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series – Nov. 8, 2006

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

November 14, 1940

London is enduring the Blitz. In the North Atlantic, the British and Canadian navies are fighting a desperate battle to keep open Britain’s vital supply line from North America.

There’s some talk in government circles that perhaps it would be in Britain’s interests to draw closer to the French Vichy government. Churchill decides to send his cabinet colleagues a note. It follows in full: --------------

“Although revenge has no part in politics, and we should always be looking forward rather than looking back, it would be a mistake to suppose that a solution of our difficulties with Vichy will be reached by a policy of mere conciliation and forgiveness.

The Vichy Government is under heavy pressure from Germany, and there is nothing that they would like better that to feel a nice, soft, cozy, forgiving England on their other side. This would enable them to win minor favours from Germany at our expense, and hang on as long as possible to see how the war goes.

We, on the contrary, should not hesitate, when our interests require it, to confront them with difficult and rough situations, and make then feel that we have teeth as well as Hitler.” (emphasis in original) ------------

When was the last time you read an important government policy document that is so brief, to the point and wise?
_________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 525-526)

Something to Be Proud Of

Early this morning Liestoppers posted "Something to be proud Of."

The post was that and more.

It was really an editorial.

But it had the thought, depth and values normally missing from most MSM editorial columns.

Liestoppers began :

The votes are in and counted. Mike Nifong will continue to be Durham County District Attorney, at least until the bar complaints are followed through. [...]

To those of you disappointed that this amazing effort didn’t result in Nifong’s removal from office, turn off “There’s a tear in my beer.” Or as Jo Dee Messina might say, “There’s no time for tears.” Put in Montgomery Gentry’s “Something to be proud of” and turn it up as loud as it will go.

A group of Durham citizens organized an effort to state loud and clear that Nifong’s unethical and despicable conduct would not go unnoticed. An easy general election win quickly turned into a less than 50% escape. That’s something to be proud of.

The Democratic Party in Durham offered up only [Nifong].

The Republican Party in Durham offered up only a delusional fool interested in promoting himself and too vain. [...}

Ordinary citizens picked up the slack and spoke in a loud, unmistakable voice about the real values of justice and the conduct expected of our public officials.”

Every single person who contributed to this incredible and historic grassroots efforts against public abuse of power deserves to be proud today.[...]

When the hoax is over and the full truth known, we will all look back and judge our actions against the standards of “something to be proud of.” LieStoppers is comfortable where it stands.

And when "the full truth is known," Liestoppers will deserve a place in the front rank of the truth tellers.

Folks, if you're following the Duke Hoax, I hope Liestoppers is on your "visit daily" list along with Durham-in-Wonderland, Friends of Duke University, and Johnsville News.

This weekend I'll post and link to some outstanding bloggers who from time to time report and comment on the hoax

Liestoppers' post/editorial is here.

Go, Bob Harris, Go

For thirty years sportscaster Bob Harris has been the familiar “Voice of the Duke Blue Devils.” He broadcasts both football and basketball games. Last year Bob broadcast his 1000th Duke basketball game. He was recently inducted into the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame.

Bob’s also a good neighbor and friend to many in Durham. I couldn’t tell you the number of times Bob has helped sports youth groups find speakers for their awards dinners or agreed to serve as MC at a function at a retirement home.

Bob’s Hall of Fame citation includes this:

”[He’s] been extremely involved in community service, with countless celebrity appearances as well as behind-the-scenes work for a host of charitable causes.”

So yesterday morning, Election Day, DA Mike Nifong knew exactly what he was doing when, with TV camera’s rolling, he approached Bob "for a handshake."

"The handshake" was sure to be on the local Noon Hour and Five and Six O’clock news programs.

Nifong no doubt was inwardly salivating at the thought of viewers who hadn’t yet voted watching and hearing about “a smiling DA Mke Nifong shaking hands this morning outside a polling station with Bob Harris, the very popular ‘Voice of the Duke Blue Devils.’”

But Harris knew what Nifong’s game was and he called it (from WTVD):

Eyewitness News cameras were rolling when Nifong tried to shake hands and say hello to Bob Harris, the voice of Duke sports. Harris was in his car as Nifong walked up.

"You've got to be nicer than that," Nifong said.

"Get out of here," Harris said. "Don't pull this crap."

"This isn't about Duke," Nifong said. "This isn't about Duke at all."

"No," Harris said. "It's about honesty. You're not honest."

Wasn't that wonderful, what Harris did?

I’m sending him the email below.

KC Johnson and Johnsville News also posted on Harris’ truth telling.

You can read more about Bob here.

*********************************************************
Dear Bob:

Thirty great years as the “Voice of the Blue Devils!”

And then yesterday morning, with “Don’t pull that crap” and “It’s all about honesty. You’re not honest,” you were “the voice” of all of us who want a Durham DA who’s fair and seeks justice for all.

Yesterday was one of your most memorable and important “broadcasts.” It’s heartened those of us in the Durham and Duke communities and elsewhere who are pressing on in the fight to right wrongs.

And as we all know, your words will be special to those who've suffered most because of Nifong's travesties: the players and their families.

I posted on your remarks at my blog. Here’s the link.

Best,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series – Nov. 7, 2006

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

Today we’ll read “Three by Churchill.”

Of Joseph Chamberlain, an important early 20th Century political leader whose son Neville would become Prime Minister, Churchill said: “Mr. Chamberlain loves the working man, he loves to see him work.”

That jab is often said to have actually been directed at Clement Attlee. I don’t know which the case is. Then, too, there’s always the chance Churchill may have believed in recycling.

Of Arthur Balfour, Prime Minister from 1902-06, Churchill remarked: “If you wanted nothing done, Arthur Balfour was the best man for the task. There was no equal to him.”

And of Stanley Baldwin, who served three times as Prime Minister and was succeeded in May, 1937 by Neville Chamberlain, Churchill observed: “He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”
___________________________________________________________
The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill compiled by Dominique Enright (pgs. 58-61)

Before the votes are counted

Regardless of the outcome of tonight’s DA race, here are some good things that have happened since Beth Brewer and Roland Leary filed petition signatures for Lewis Cheek on August 9.

I hope you add other good things on the comment thread. We can put together a very long list.

Public opinion has continued to shift in favor of the players and against Nifong.

Under the pressure of NC’s Discovery Law, Nifong’s been forced to turn over evidence that further exonerates the players and implicates him in what is nothing more nor less than his deliberate frame-up of three innocent young man.

Gottlieb produced his “notes” for Nifong. They were meant to help Nifong’s frame-up. It turns out they gave Nifong the kind of “help” you give a drowning man when you toss him an anchor.

At first, Nifong appears not to have realized just what kind of “help” Gottlieb had given him. In a move Nifong obviously meant to preempt an upcoming 60 Minutes episode likely to be favorable to the players, Gottlieb’s notes were “leaked” to The New York Times, the most reliable refuge of scoundrels playing race, gender and class cards,

The Times did its best to deliver for Nifong. It knocked out a 5,600-word, front page story. But despite The Times' best efforts its story fooled no one not already fooled.

As Stuart Taylor, arguably America’s most respected journalist writing on legal matter, told Slate readers:

[The Times’s story’s ] flaws are so glaring that it was shredded by bloggers within hours after it hit my doorstep. They were led by a Durham group called Liestoppers and by KC Johnson, an obscure but brilliant New York City history professor of centrist political views.

The [story] highlights every superficially incriminating piece of evidence in the case, selectively omits important exculpatory evidence, and reports hotly disputed statements by not-very-credible police officers and the mentally unstable accuser as if they were established facts.

With comical credulity, it features as its centerpiece a leaked, transparently contrived, 33-page police sergeant's memo that seeks to paper over some of the most obvious holes in the prosecution's evidence.

And all of that was before we saw the tapes of “Good Old Precious” just about the time Gottlieb’s notes tell us she was hurting so much she needed a very soft pillow to sit down on.

On the eve of the 60 Minutes broadcast The Raleigh News & Observer’s admitted that in its Mar. 25 “anonymous interview” story it withheld the news that the accuser had identified the second dancer, Kim Roberts, and made accusations concerning her which the N&O said it didn’t mention in the story because it couldn’t “substantiate” any of that.

Wow, you’re saying, but the N&O didn’t substantiate almost everything it said about the lacrosse players.

You’re right. You’re also right that the polls in Durham will close in a few minutes so I’d better wrap this post up.

Remember to add to it on the thread.

I'll put one other thing on the list of what's happened since the Cheek petitions were filed: 60 Minutes concluded they’re innocent. We'd all believed that before 60 came along but it was sure nice to hear 60 say it.

And 60's conclusion will I think help defeat Nifong tonight.

Now to the returns.

Let The Chronicle know

Duke's student newspaper had a fine editorial yesterday endorsing Louis Cheek.

If you haven't done so already, I hope you read it.

You can leave a comment here. The Chronicle's Editorial Board reads each one.

The Herald Sun’s ABCs.

Bob Ashley became editor of the Durham Herald Sun in late 2004. During the next 15 months, the paper’s circulation declined about 20%.

Then in March of this year, the biggest news story to ever hit Durham exploded onto the front pages of newspapers across America and around the world. What was first called “the Duke lacrosse rape case” and is now recognized as a hoax case has remained a “page one” story for seven months.

The case has provided “cover story material” for Newsweek and Time as Durham’s DA Nifong went for weeks giving bizarre interviews in which, among other things, he explained how condoms could have been used in an alleged gang-rape and demonstrated strangulation with Nifong simultaneously acting the roles of strangler and victim.

Reverends Jackson and Sharpton offered (pleaded?) to come to Durham. They didn’t, but the Black Panthers did.

Duke University’s President allowed as how he was eager to see three of his students charged with the alleged gang-rape “prove their innocence” at a trial.

CBS’s 60 Minutes spent six months researching the story and reported in a double episode.

All that and more has played out right smack in the middle of the H-S circulation area.

So what’s happened to the H-S’s circulation numbers these past six months?

They’ve gone up, right?

Wrong!

In The Raleigh News & Observer we read that :

“according to the Newspaper Association of America’s calculations of data supplied by the Audit Bureau of Circulations [ABC] for the period [March to September, 2006,] The Herald-Sun of Durham, which competes directly with The N&O in Durham and Chapel Hill, reported the greatest declines of the state’s largest papers: a 7.3 percent decrease daily and a 10.5 percent drop on Sunday.”

How to explain those circulation drops?

I think they reflect the fact that growing numbers Durhamites are learning that Ashley spins a lot of news and ignores or buries other news that doesn’t fit his agenda.

Just consider today’s H-S. It’s front page Election Day story, “Durham DA race is hot,” begins:

Voters are set to go to the polls today to settle a variety of state and local elections, none hotter than the race for district attorney in Durham County.

Incumbent DA Mike Nifong faces challenges from County Commissioner Lewis Cheek and write-in challenger Steve Monks.

Campaign workers for all three men spent Monday preparing for today's election, lining up precinct-watchers to greet voters and making sure prospective supporters understand the rules that will govern the balloting.

If you’re following the election, you know Nifong and Cheek are locked in what looks like a close race.

Monks has almost no organization and no chance of winning. He’s polling in the low single digits. A Monks vote is a vote experts say would likely go to Cheek.

But for weeks Ashley and the H-S have built up Monks and treated him as a serious challenger.

Today’s H-S story makes no mention of Monks' polls numbers or the experts belief that all he can do is possibly play a spoiler role by siphoning votes from Cheek and thereby tip a close election to Nifong.

The H-S story also makes no mention of the sexual harassment complaint former Durham Assistant DA Ashley Cannon’s has filed against someone in Nifong’s office. Cannon says Nifong ignored her complaint.

The H-S failed to report on the story yesterday when the Raleigh N&O reported it.

Today the H-S stuck the story in its “Metro” section, which is folded inside the “A” and “Sports” sections.

For the best and most comprehensive reporting on Cannon’s charge see KC Johnson’s report at Durham-in-Wonderland.

Intelligent people aren’t going to pay money for the kind of “news reporting” the H-S served up today and has been serving up for months.

Many people believe Nifong’s “the worst DA in America.”

Ashley’s Duke Hoax and DA election coverage have a lot of people saying he’s the worst newspaper editor in America.

The ABC circulation numbers would seem to clinch their case.

BTW – In case you’re wondering why I went to the N&O for the ABC’s H-S circulation report, I couldn’t find it in the H-S.

We only go forward

There's a very good chance Louis Cheek will defeat the man many consider the worst DA in America. If I were betting today, my money would be on Cheek.

But what if Nifong wins? What will happen? Will the fight for justice go on?

You bet it will!

Sure, there’ll be deep disappointment and some tears; but no recriminations. Pros recriminate. We’re amateurs who put our best out there. We’ll be thanking everyone who helped and asking: “What’s the best way to go forward?”

Joan Foster at Liestoppers thinks Cheek will win but she knows how Liestoppers and the rest of us will go forward should Nifong win:

[We] will still be here tomorrow morning, breathing fire. Forget despair… think dogged determination. We don't do angst, we redouble our efforts.

Every Ashley propaganda piece has fueled a stunning rebuttal from someone on the blog. A twisted missive popping up from the professor-ly-pitiful Gang of 88 is manna for our creative heaven. Every Nifong outrage inspires us, rejuvenates us, rededicates us. […]

A Nifong victory tonight will not bring ANY of us to despair. It will burnish ALL of us to whatever brilliance we might hope to possess. We will dig deeper, we will delve further… we will leave no stone unturned.

We will write and rhyme and reason... parse the law and produce wickedly funny cartoons. We will not be eviscerated by a Nifong win today… by heaven, this crew will be invigorated.

Nifongistas, we'll all still be here. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Joan’s right.

None of us will give Nifong a day’s rest until he’s out of office. After that, he can spend all the time he likes meeting with his defense attorneys.

Joan’s editorial is here.

The Churchill Series – Nov. 6, 2006

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

We know Eisenhower had his problems with certain “personalities.” Generals Montgomery and de Gaulle come immediately to mind. Churchill had his problems with those same two “personalities.”

Today we’ll read something Montgomery wrote in November, 1943 about British General Alexander, then commending the 15th Army Group in Italy. It's an example of the kind of things Montgomery was then saying to many in the Allied high command. At the time, he was Alexander’s subordinate:

In my opinion 15 Army Group is a very bad and inefficient H.Q. I think the staff there works under great difficulties since they find it quite impossible to get any decision out of ALEXANDER, or any firm line of country on which to work.

There is no proper planning or thinking ahead. ALEXANDER does not know clearly what he wants; and he has very little idea as to how to operate the Armies in the field.

When he has a conference of commanders, which is very seldom, it is a lamentable spectacle; he relies on ideas being produced which will give him a plan. …

There’s a lot more as they say.

At the time Montgomery wrote the above and similar remarks, the commanders for the D-Day Overlord operation had not been selected. Alexander was seen by many as the likely choice to command the ground forces. I’m sure you know who Montgomery thought would be the best choice.

For Churchill and Eisenhower, dealing with Montgomery and the bitter resentments his comments often caused was all part of a tough day's work.

BTW – Montgomery capitalized ALEXANDER in the original. I guess he wanted to make it easy for everyone to remember who he was talking about.
_______________________________________________________
Nigel Hamilton, Master of the Battlefield:Monty's War Years, 1942-1944. (p. 468)

The Press at War

Excerpt’s from James Q Wilson’s op-ed, “The Press at War,” in today's WSJ:

Thankfully, though, the press did not cover World War II the way it covered Vietnam and has covered Iraq. What caused this profound change?

Like many liberals and conservatives, I believe that our Vietnam experience created new media attitudes that have continued down to the present.

During that war, some reporters began their coverage supportive of the struggle, but that view did not last long. Many people will recall the CBS television program, narrated by Morley Safer, about U.S. Marines using cigarette lighters to torch huts in Cam Ne in 1965. Many will remember the picture of a South Vietnamese officer shooting a captured Viet Cong through the head. Hardly anyone can forget the My Lai story that ran for about a year after a journalist reported that American troops had killed many residents of that village.

Undoubtedly, similar events occurred in World War II, but the press didn't cover them. In Vietnam, however, key reporters thought that the Cam Ne story was splendid. David Halberstam said that it "legitimized pessimistic reporting" and would show that "there was something terribly wrong going on out there." The film, he wrote, shattered American "innocence" and raised questions about "who we were."

The changes came to a head in January 1968, when Communist forces during the Tet holiday launched a major attack on South Vietnamese cities. According to virtually every competent observer, these forces met a sharp defeat, but American press accounts described Tet instead as a major communist victory.

Washington Post reporter Peter Braestrup later published a book in which he explained the failure of the press to report the Tet offensive accurately. His summary: "Rarely has contemporary crisis-journalism turned out, in retrospect, to have veered so widely from reality."

Even as the facts became clearer, the press did not correct its false report that the North Vietnamese had won.

When NBC News producer Robert Northshield was asked at the end of 1968 whether the network should put on a news show indicating that American and South Vietnamese troops had won, he rejected the idea, because Tet was already "established in the public's mind as a defeat, and therefore it was an American defeat."

A blog friend who read Wilson’s column emailed:

”Tet was already established in the public's mind as a defeat, and therefore it was an American defeat.”

Just substitute Iraq

From reading mil blogs quoting troops in Iraq and from conversations I’ve had with troops who’ve returned from there, I’ve become convinced that most of MSM are giving us a replay of their “America’s losing” Vietnam-era kind of “reporting.”

What do you think?

Hat tip: Mike Williams.

Chronicle columnist nails it

Excerpts from Duke senior Steve Miller’s column in today’s Chronicle:

Our fellow students are not on trial because of evidence, but in spite of it.

This is a moral, social and legal outrage. It is an assault on our peers, our community and the core values of our nation.

To successfully unleash this depraved injustice, it seems our DA has managed to go against criminal procedure, legal precedent, constitutional protections, hundreds of years of common law and thousands of years of ethics tracing back to the Old Testament.

Nifong must have confused America with a police state.

Miller’s got it.

I’d only add that Nifong’s been helped along by many enablers at Duke, in media and in organizations that claim to be about people’s rights but act more like special interest groups.

Miller's column is here.

On the most important issue, Dems fail

I could give you a long list of things I think President Bush and the Republicans get wrong. But there’s one thing they get right that Democratic Party leaders have been getting very wrong for decades. And now most rank-and-file Democrats seem to get it wrong too.

That one thing is so important I can’t bring myself to vote for Democrats in elections for national office.

Michael Barone tell us about that one thing :

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Those two sentences, spoken by John Kerry last week, tell a lot about the mindset of many -- not all, but many -- Democrats who supported him for president in 2004 and who, as this is written, are looking forward to Democratic victories this week. One thing they tell us is that Kerry's mindset is still back in the Vietnam era. […]

Kerry's explanation for his bizarre refusal to apologize for two days and then his grudging off-camera apology was that he was trying to make a joke about the stupidity of George W. Bush (even though Kerry's grades at Yale were slightly lower than Bush's).

But his words were not wholly out of line with previous statements by him and other Democrats characterizing American troops as perpetrators rather than heroes.

There was Kerry's 1971 "Genghis Khan" testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as his December 2005 statement that troops were "terrorizing" women and children.

Sen. Dick Durbin likened American service members to Nazi storm troopers and the Khmer Rouge, and Sen. Edward Kennedy suggested that Abu Ghraib under our "new management" was comparable to Saddam Hussein's regime of torture and murder.

Behind all these statements is an unspoken assumption that American service members are incompetent and vicious.(bold added) […]

If other Democratic leaders roundly condemned such statements, I’d think something like: “Well, both parties have their clunkers.”

But you didn't hear House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi say Kennedy’s remarks, made on the Senate floor, were an outrage for which he should have immediately apologize. Or DNC Chair Howard Dean demand Durbin immediately apologize for his statements.

It’s not just Democratic Party leaders who fail to speak out against those who slime our military.

Look at Democratic newspapers such as the NY Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, and, here in North Carolina, the Raleigh N&O. Do they editorialize and take their party leaders to task for sliming our military?

Most rank-and-file Democrats I know applaud when terrorists or their sympathizers are invited to speak at college campuses. Students should be exposed to all points of view, they say.

But allow ROTC recruiters on those same campuses? That’s different. Of course not.

Clinton scandals? Dems won't talk about them.

But Abu Ghraib? They never seem to tire of talking about it; especially describing to one another the “shocking photos” they’ve seen.

If you’re among such people and you point out the magnificent service our military renders, you start to get stares. You’re clearly “off message.” You’re likely to be asked if you’re a Republican or Conservative.

Our military is America and the world’s principal protection from the kind of horrors Muslim fundamentalists would inflict on all peoples throughout the world.

America’s military is the world’s largest, best-equipped, best-trained, most generous and most effective humanitarian service organization.

Its defense and humanitarian service work, often one and the same, is incredibly dangerous. Millions of its members have literally given life and limb in the service of our country and humanity.

As long as Democrats slime our military, they’ll never get my vote.

Chronicle endorses Cheek

"Cheek for District Attorney," The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper, says this morning.

Durham voters will face an easy choice this Tuesday at the polls: elect a district attorney who has failed his office or vote to recall him by selecting Lewis Cheek.

It is true, as many in the public sphere have expressed, that one should not normally judge an attorney based on one case alone but rather on an entire career. But what if that attorney's mistakes in one case are so public and so grievous?

Many have accused Nifong of disregarding several laws and practices like his oversight of numerous failed lineups, improper contact with witnesses, refusal to examine exculpatory evidence and advocating the guilt of the accused to the press before properly reviewing the evidence.

For the first time the public is witnessing Nifong's prosecutorial style first hand, in a very public manner. Nifong's handling of the case to date raises a number of questions about his prosecutorial conduct, but also about the general manner in which he carries out his duties as district attorney.(bold added)

The district attorney is more than just a lawyer who prosecutes cases; he is a public figure with a great deal of power. Nifong's actions seem to sidestep the legal system, but it also seems that he has taken advantage of the community. Through his approach to the case and his statements to the press, Nifong utilized an already existing and powerful divide in the Durham community.

This district attorney race is not just about the Duke lacrosse case and it certainly should not be. Durham had the highest homicide rate in North Carolina in 2005 and continues to face a grave gang violence problem.

This county needs a fair and competent DA. From witnessing his style during the past few months, it is apparent that Nifong is hardly that choice.

It seems shocking from recent polls that Durham residents would not choose to recall Nifong and have someone else appointed to the post. This time, the victims of what seem to be unethical procedures were three members of the Duke community who could afford to hire proper legal representation, but what happens to those who can't?

Nifong appears to be, from his actions during the past few months, a DA who will do anything to get a conviction and gain political favor. [...]

Only one option is left in this election: Lewis Cheek. Steve Monks, as a Republican write-in candidate with little trial experience, has no chance of being elected.

By selecting Cheek as DA, Durham residents can send a direct message to the governor that this county needs better.

North Carolina Governor Mike Easley is no fool; he would not subvert the democratic process by re-appointing Nifong or someone like him.

The choice is clear.

The Chronicle formally endorses Lewis Cheek for district attorney.

People at Duke, in Durham and elsewhere who care about justice will cheer The Chronicle's well-written, carefully reasoned editorial.

By urging voters to reject Nifong and give Governor Easley a chance to appoint an able and honorable District Attorney, The Chronicle is serving the interests of Durham’s citizens and everyone else who wants and expects to be treated justly by the DA's office.

The editorial does something else: It answers a question many in the Duke community and elsewhere have been asking for months: "Isn't there any other group at Duke besides the Women's lacrosse team willing to lead in the fight for justice?”

Today, at least, we can all answer: "Yes, The Chronicle's Editorial Board."

How Ashley "endorses" Nifong

Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley has not been able to stop the steep declines in the H-S’s circulation numbers and advertising revenue which began shortly after he became editor in late 2004.

But Ashley has found ways to get around a long-standing H-S policy that other editors have respected: not endorsing candidates for local office.

The H-S has traditionally seen itself as “a paper for the whole community.” It's also the only Durham-based daily newspaper. So the H-S has a long-standing policy of not taking sides in local elections.

But that policy presented Ashley with a problem.

Ashley’s a strong supporter of Durham DA Mike Nifong who’s locked in a tight election battle with Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek. A write-in candidate, Steve Monks, who's polling in the low single digits, could play a spoiler role by taking votes from Cheek and thereby tipping the election to Nifong.

So what could Ashley do to help Nifong?

Ashley effectively runs the H-S. He could have ignored its non-endorsement policy and endorsed Nifong outright. In at least one editorial, he all but did that. (I can no longer access the editorial. I'll email Ashley Monday and keep you informed. )

But an outright H-S endorsement would have shattered the “community paper” image that Ashley still tries to maintain. What’s more, most Durhamites would’ve recognized it as another “Ashley change.” That recognition would only call more attention to the H-S’s circulation and ad revenue declines, news stories Ashley understandably downplays.

So instead of an endorsement on the editorial page, Ashley appears to have found at least two other ways to help Nifong.

One involves using news stories to boost Monks’ candidacy. Experts agree Monks has no chance of winning (In two recent polls of voter preferences, Monks polled 2% and 5%). Experts also agree almost all Monks’ votes would otherwise go to Cheek, Nifong’s only series challenger.

But just about all H-S DA race stories have reported nothing about any of that.

Instead, Ashley's H-S gives Monks so much "puff" coverage you'd think Monks was Nifong’s only serious challenger and Cheek was the guy with poll numbers close to zero (See the H-S's two most recent DA race stories here and here.)

Another way Ashely’s found to help Nifong is by sliming and sometimes outright falsely reporting on Duke lacrosse players and those supporting them.

In a H-S Oct. 17 editorial, “Little new in ’60 Minutes’ report,” there’s this:

”The players maintained an aura of sweet innocence with reporter Ed Bradley either downplaying or ignoring conflicting evidence. Collin Finnerty, for example, was portrayed as an outstanding lacrosse prospect, but no mention was made of his recent assault conviction, with strong homophobic overtones, against a gay man on a Washington, D.C. street” (Editorial no longer available online)

The “gay man” the H-S refers to is Jeffrey Bloxsom.

Five months ago, Bloxsom and his attorney went to considerable lengths to let the public know he’s not gay. They said they were doing that not because Bloxsom would be ashamed if he were gay, but because they wanted people to know the truth about Bloxsom and not exploit the incident as gay-bashing. Their statements were widely reported during May.

After that, I hadn't seen another news organization use the “Collin beat a gay” falsehood until the H-S used it on Oct. 17.

But wait, Ashley's H-S can do worse.

In August, Ashley’s paper reported what it said were :

“previously undisclosed [DNA]matches, one involving indicted rape suspect David Evans and the other involving a player not charged, have been confirmed by several sources close to the case. (bold added)

According to the sources, semen on a towel was DNA-linked to Evans.”…

It turned out the H-S’s “previously undisclosed matches” had been disclosed months before (see here and here) in news stories that made clear the towel was not connected to the rape charge and that Evens lived in the house where the towel was found.

And just today in the H-S we find this :

"… Stefanie Sparks, an assistant women's lacrosse coach at Duke who is also a paralegal for -- and sister-in-law of -- Bob Ekstrand, a Durham lawyer who represents several unindicted men's lacrosse players.

Ekstrand, a Duke alumnus, has been an active behind-the-scenes player in the continuing controversy over the case."

In Bob Ashley’s H-S an attorney like Bob Ekstrand becomes in the next sentence “an active behind-the-scenes player in the continuing controversy.”

But Durham Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb has, as far as I know, never been described by Ashley as “an active behind-the-scenes player” even when he was somewhere typing up 32 pages of single space notes based on two pages of hand-written notes.

The H-S’s declining circulation and ad revenues appear to befuddle Ashley. But my, isn’t he good at helping Nifong?

A Gottlieb question

If the Easter Bunny can leave millions of baskets under children's beds, why are we making such a big deal about Durham Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb leaving jsut one thrity-two page report in DA Nifong's "IN" basket?

Hussein: Good news, maybe more to follow

This morning from Fox News:

Saddam Hussein, the iron-fisted dictator who ruled Iraq for nearly a quarter of a century, was found guilty of crimes against humanity Sunday and sentenced to death by hanging.

Perhaps the imminence of his hanging will lead Hussein to try to make a deal to spare his life.

Saddam may now offer the Iraq government some “ inside stories” in exchange for being allowed to live out his days in confined but comfortable circumstances.

Who bribed him and his cronies in order to get lucrative oil contracts? Names, dates, and amounts, please.

What about UN officials who looked the other way while they were supposed to be supervising the multi-billion dollar Oil for Food program, which Gen. Tommy Franks correctly called “the Oil for Palaces program?” Who are they? What turned their heads?

What’s the truth about WMD in Iraq? This is your last chance, Saddam.

Advice to the Iraqi Government: Get to work building that gallows. Keep Saddam informed of how the projects going.

Nifong? Johnsville's solution

is right here.

You don't want to miss it.

Why the Duke Hoax Continues

William “Bill” Anderson is an economics professor at Frostburg State University in Maryland. He's written often on the Duke Hoax. His commentary's been informed and incisive. Anderson’s paid particular attention to Duke University’s role in enabling a hoax to become a witch hunt that’s led to massive injustices. His most recent column begins:

The "60 Minutes" broadcast has come and gone. Millions of people have seen the video of the accuser doing a pole dance at a strip club at the same time she and the police were claiming she was too injured even to sit upright.

The second stripper at the infamous lacrosse party now claims that the accuser told her to hit her in order to inflict bruises in hopes of being able to frame the players on criminal assault and rape charges.

One bombshell after another hits this case, yet the prosecutor, Michael Nifong, continues to push it to trial, and no one with authority will do anything to stop him.

Furthermore, the demand for trial and criminal convictions not only echoes from the black community in Durham, North Carolina, but also from vocal segments of the Duke University faculty. There may not be evidence that anyone committed rape, but a large and influential portion of the population at Durham wants these young men in prison for the rest of their lives.

In most situations, one would expect that the existence and publication of information that obliterates a criminal case would be taken seriously by the authorities, but we do not see that happening here. Thus, we ask ourselves why this case is different, and why much of Durham and the Duke University faculty have rushed well beyond judgment to a point at which they demand that no one confuse them with facts.

The short version of the answer is this: the politics of race and sex trump justice and even logic. The longer version reaches the same conclusion, but demonstrates the path that is taken – and why that is so. As I explain why this case still is alive, I must begin with the thought that also is at the end of this analysis, that being that I doubt I ever will be involved in or even see this level of hypocrisy and cynicism on behalf of people who claim to care about things like justice.

The rest of Anderson’s column is here. It’s the first of a planned two column series.

Message to Bill Anderson: Great column.

Something else: I can't resist repeating this paragraph:

The short version of the answer is this: the politics of race and sex trump justice and even logic. The longer version reaches the same conclusion, but demonstrates the path that is taken – and why that is so. As I explain why this case still is alive, I must begin with the thought that also is at the end of this analysis, that being that I doubt I ever will be involved in or even see this level of hypocrisy and cynicism on behalf of people who claim to care about things like justice

Israel at war soon?

John Keegan is an outstanding historian. He’s also a superb military analyst. In the London Telegraph he predicts :

There will soon be another war in the Middle East, this time a renewal of the conflict between the Israel Defence Force (IDF) and Hizbollah.

The conflict is inevitable and unavoidable. It will come about because Israel cannot tolerate the rebuilding of Hizbollah's fortified zone in south Lebanon, from which last year it launched its missile bombardment of northern Israel.

Hizbollah has now reconstructed the fortified zone and is replenishing its stocks of missiles there. Hamas is also creating a fortified zone in the Gaza Strip and building up its stocks of missiles. Israel, therefore, faces missile attack on two fronts. When the Israel general staff decides the threat has become intolerable, it will strike. […]

The big question hanging over an Israeli return to south Lebanon is whether that would provoke a war with Syria, Lebanon's Arab protector. The answer is quite possibly yes, but that such an extension of hostilities might prove welcome both to Israel and to the United States, which regards Syria as Iran's advanced post on the Mediterranean shore.

What is certain is that – probably before the year is out – Israel will have struck at Hizbollah in south Lebanon. And the strike will come even sooner if Hizbollah reopens its missile bombardment of northern Israel from its underground systems.

You can read Keegan’s entire analysis here.

Durham DA poll commentary

Liestoppers and KC Johnson at Durham-in-Wonderland both post on poll results released yesterday by supporters of Louis Cheek.

Those results show a tight Durham DA‘s race with Cheek gaining strength and a very high percentage of undecideds/don’t knows (30% combined)

Comments:

Can there really be that high a percentage of undecs/dks just a few days before Election Day?

When I posted yesterday, I said that were a lot of them out there, at least judging by the folks I talk with.

Those people are a good Durham mix in terms of race, class, gender and age. In terms of political orientation, all of them fit somewhere on the liberal-independent- conservative spectrum. None are hard right or left.

As those people have started moving (again, just the ones I talk to), they’re moving to Cheek.

A neighbor and I were at our driveways getting our papers this morning. She’s been saying for months she doesn’t like the idea of “letting the Governor pick the DA when it’s our right to pick him.” But she walked over (very quickly, it’s cold here today) and said, “I’ve just decided the hell with it. I’m voting for Cheek. Nifong’s done too much wrong.”

KC Johnson says comparing the Cheek poll with one completed tow weeks ago by the N&O suggests:

the news of recent days (Nifong's admission that, despite his status as prosecutor and lead investigator for the case, he's never spoken to the accuser about her story, amidst revelations that the accuser was dancing in a most limber fashion at the time the authorities claim that she was in horrific pain from her attack) is having an effect.

He’s got that right. I’ve been hearing that everywhere I’ve gone during the past few days.

It’s Nifong’s failure to interview the accuser that’s bothering the people I talk with. They’re almost all decent people who are more concerned by the DA’s conduct than they are by the accuser’s actions, not that her actions don’t register on them with predictable effect.

For such people, Tuesday’s election isn’t about “Good Old Precious’” pole dancing. It’s about a DA whose actions many of them for the first time are starting to seriously question.

In a few hours my wife and I will be going with friends to the Georgia Tech – N.C. State game. We’ll do lots of tailgating so I’ll have a chance to get around and talk to many people.

I’ll post tomorrow around noon on what I hear and what I read in the papers.

To The Chronicle: Letter 2

Readers’ Note: On Oct. 27, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published an editorial, “Blogger’s get point, miss complexity.”

The editorial and its comment thread are here.

Please read them if you haven’t already done so. See also The Chronicle's explanation of how it "writes" editorials.

The Chronicle editorial levels extremely serious charges at bloggers for, among other things, vilifying Duke President Brodhead, media and Durham DA Nifong. But The Chronicle offers not a single fact to support its many charges.

I’m responding to The Chronicle with a series of electronic letters which I’ll post at JinC. Each will be headed "To The Chronicle" and enumerated. A link to Letter 1 is here.

Letter 2 follows.

John
_________________________________________________

Editorial Board
The Chronicle
Duke University

Dear Editorial Board members:

Here’s my second letter responding to your Oct. 27 editorial, “Blogger’s get point, miss complexity.” A link to the first letter is here.

The letters are in posts at www.johnincarolina.com. I’ll email you links so you can respond on the comment threads. I hope many of you will.

In your editorial you say: “An informed-complex-understanding of the situation requires in-depth conversations with administrators, lacrosse players, lacrosse parents, defense lawyers, hundreds of students, alumni and many more.”

That’s true as regards some matters. For example: Why did so many at Duke embrace a vicious, wildly improbable hoax?

We’ve all read about the Salem witch hysteria and trials. We also know that in the not too distant past some newspapers, law officials and others inflamed issues of race, class and gender for their own malevolent purposes.

How, then, was such a hoax embraced and enabled by so many at Duke?

Why did that hoax lead to the “burning” of many innocent people, including Duke students and a taxi driver who did nothing more than a citizen's duty?

Why does the University continue to let the innocent suffer?

Tha answers to those questions do require study; they are complex.

But does The Chronicle Editorial Board believe a decent person actually needs an “informed-complex-understanding of the situation” to ask those questions? Or to ask why so many at Duke duck them? Or to begin examining them?

During the week of Mar. 27 Nifong publicly ridiculed Duke students for exercising their right to counsel.He also asked why they needed attorneys if they were innocent.

Nifong was engaging in blatant McCarthyism.

Board members, you’ve read about “the McCarthy period” and surely heard professors speak out and condemn McCarthy, his methods and those who use them.

But I can't find a single Duke professor quoted in The Chronicle at that time who condemned Nifong’s McCarthyism. And, although I live in Durham, am often on campus and have a number of faculty friends and acquaintances, I can’t recall meeting or hearing at that time any who were speaking out publicly.

Yes, understanding exactly why Duke faculty didn’t speak out against Nifong’s McCarthyism requires an “informed-complex-understanding of the situation.”

But just what does a blogger or an editorial board member need to know to say the faculty should have spoken out?

Or to say that Duke is in serious trouble if many faculty members failed to speak out because of fear of colleague censure, indifference to students’ rights, outright support for Nifong or some other reason or combinations of reasons?

I wish many MSM journalists would ask those questions, and report and editorialize on what they learn. And I wish The Chronicle would, too.

Do you recall what happened on May 18 to your school-mate, Reade Seligmann and Duke’s silence afterwards?

I refer to the threats racists shouted at Seligmann, first as he walked to the Durham County Courthouse (“Justice will be done, Rapist”), and then within the courtroom before the judge entered.

Because some readers at JinC may not be aware of what happened, I’m including an excerpt from The Guardian's account of May 21 :

Reade Seligmann, 20, sat in a suit at a court hearing. From the gallery one onlooker shouted: 'Justice will be served, rapist!' Seligmann largely ignored the taunts, but as he left came the call 'Dead man walking!' and he blanched.

Decent people are outraged by what happened to Seligmann.

They also wonder why any university remains silent when one of it students – Black, White, Hispanic, Asian or otherwise – is subjected to the threats Reade Seligmann endured on May 18.

Bloggers and others have raised questions about Duke’s silence on May 18 and since. I’m proud to be one of them.

The silence of President Brodhead and almost all faculty on May 18 and since is a terrible thing.

Why do you castigate those who call attention to it? Shouldn't you instead be calling on Brodhead and the faculty to redress matters in so far as they can?

My next letter concerns your upset at what you see as bloggers vilifying DA Nifong.

I ask again that you keep my email adress in confidence.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com