Carter’s book draws fire

Yesterday the AP reported:

A Carter Center fellow and longtime adviser to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has resigned after sharply criticizing Carter's new book on Palestine, and a Jewish human rights group said it obtained thousands of signatures from supporters also protesting the book.

Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel at Emory University, resigned as a Carter Center fellow for Middle East Affairs after reading Carter's 21st book, titled "Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid," which was released last week. […]

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Wednesday on its Web site that Stein said he was "sad but not sorry" about his resignation. […]

The newspaper printed an excerpt of the letter saying the book:

"is not based on unvarnished analysis; it is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments ... Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little similarity to points claimed in the book."

Today Carter and his book came under further criticism. This time the charge is plagiarism. Fox News reports:

Former President Jimmy Carter faced new criticism Friday over his controversial book on Palestinian lands when a former Middle East diplomat accused him of improperly publishing maps that did not belong to him.

The new charge came as Carter attempted to counter charges from a former top aide that the book manipulates facts to distort history.

Ambassador Dennis Ross, a former Mideast envoy and FOX News foreign affairs analyst, claims maps commissioned and published by him were improperly republished in Carter's book.

"I think there should be a correction and an attribution," Ross said. "These were maps that never existed, I created them."

After Ross saw the maps in Carter's book, he told his publisher he wanted a correction.

When asked if the former president ripped him off, Ross replied: “it sure looks that way.”

JinC is going to follow this story. Look for more tomorrow.

Meanwhile, Stein’s letter is here.

The Political Pit Bull offers a lot more here.

A Duke “Rogues’ Gallery”

That’s what National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor offered readers last May 22.

Right at the start Taylor said no Duke Men’s lacrosse players were part of his Duke Rogues’ Gallery. He was 85% certain the three indicted players – David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann – were innocent. What’s more, he said they and their teammates had been slimed by many in media and at Duke.

Today, Taylor wouldn’t need to alert readers they’d be “no lacrosse players” in his Duke Rogues’ Gallery. But on May 22 a lot of people were expecting DA Mike Nifong to produce “the smoking gun any day now.” KC Johnson wasn’t a familiar name to those following the case. Professor Coleman’s letter wouldn’t appear for another three weeks.

Who did appear in the rogues’ gallery. Well, Professor Houston Baker, now at Vanderbilt, led Taylor’s list. Taylor explained:

I'll start with Houston Baker, a Duke professor of English and of African and African-American studies. In a public letter dated March 29, he assailed "white ... male athletes, veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech" and "sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness." He all but pronounced them guilty of "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white, male privilege loosed amongst us" against a "black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life." And on he raved, oozing that brand of racism which consists of falsely smearing decent people as racists.

"And on he raved, oozing that brand of racism which consists of falsely smearing decent people as racists.”

Isn't that a finely crafted, absolutely on point sentence? The first time I read it, I wanted to cheer. I'd the same reaction the second time. I bet I'll feel the same way the third time.

Remember President Brodhead’s chums, William Bowen and Julius Chambers?

Brodhead brought them to Duke so they could tell us what a good job he was doing although he didn’t quite put it that way. He said they'd assess how well Duke's administration had reacted to lacrosse case issues.

Bowen and Chambers' report earned them places in the Duke Rogues' Gallery. As Taylor explained:

The gallery also includes former Princeton University President William Bowen and civil-rights lawyer Julius Chambers. They went out of their way to slime the lacrosse players in a report on the Duke administration's handling of the rape scandal -- a report that is a parody of race-obsessed political correctness. […]

A curiously unbalanced team to evaluate the handling of this case, both have spent much of their careers peddling preferential treatment of racial minorities and women at the expense of white males. Not to mention Bowen's two books blasting college athletic programs.

So what remedy did they prescribe in their May 4 report for wounds caused by what they had ample reason to know was a probably-false rape charge victimizing innocent white males? You guessed it: more "diversity"! More racial and gender preferences in doling out top administrative jobs!

The report unsurprisingly commended Duke President Richard Brodhead, who had appointed Bowen and Chambers. They especially liked Brodhead's "eloquent" statements implicitly associating the lacrosse players with rape and "dehumanization," with "memories of ... systematic racial oppression," with "inequalities of wealth, privilege, and opportunity ... and the attitudes of superiority those inequalities breed."

The two did criticize some Brodhead subordinates -- for inadequate "sensitivities" toward minorities, of course. These sins included giving credence to the Duke campus police report that the accuser was not very credible because she had initially said she had been raped by 20 men and then revised it to three.

A number of others appear in the “rogues’ gallery” before Taylor ends with:

[H]ow likely is it that the more than 40 kids described by [Women’s lacrosse coach Kirstin] Kimel and the Coleman report could have maintained an airtight cover-up since March 14 of a gang rape in a small, crowded house, with not one heeding pleas by parents and lawyers to protect himself by fingering any guilty parties?

And what of various team members' handing over evidence sought by police three long days after the alleged rape, such as the accuser's fake fingernails? And of offers to take polygraph tests (which Nifong spurned)? And of other conduct inconsistent with any cover-up?

"Being at an elite university," adds Kimel, "where every side of every issue is debated, my kids were shocked, disillusioned, and disappointed that their professors and the university community were so one-sided in their condemnation of the lacrosse players."

Something is rotten at Duke, as at many universities. I don't think it has much to do with lacrosse.

Taylor wrote a superb column last May. Read it if you missed it. If you read it back then, I hope you give it another read. Great columns, like great books, are worth rereading.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 7, 2006

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

A Pearl Harbor background statement at the White House Historical Association’s website notes “Churchill knew immediately the implications of this attack.”

The most important implication? America’s entry into the war assured Allied victory.

In hindsight that seems so obvious a conclusion that you might ask: “Why bother even mentioning it?”

Because in 1941 the decisive role America would play in assuring victory wasn’t so obvious. Those who controlled policy in Japan, for instance, to the extent they considered it, discounted it.

More than 10 years after Pearl Harbor Churchill had such short-sighted people in mind when he wrote:

Silly people, and there were many, not only in enemy countries, might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand bloodletting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy and talkative people.”

Churchill’s words are found in his The Second World War, Vol. 3, (pg. 539).

Tomorrow we’ll read Churchill’s answer to the “silly people” and I’ll offer some commentary.

Pearl Harbor Remembrance

Lieutenant (JG) F.H. White was on board the USS West Virginia when it was attacked and sunk during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The following is from White’s action report written on December 11, 1941:

At 0756, approximately, I was in the wardroom when the Fire and Rescue party was called away by bugle. I ran to the quarter deck.

The first thing I saw, on reaching topside was a Japanese plane over a ship, ahead of the West Virginia, from which a column of water and smoke was rising. As I ran forward, I stopped at the Deck office and sounded the general alarm just as the first torpedo struck the ship.

In route my battle station in secondary forward I noticed no one in charge of the AA battery on the boat deck where the crews were manning the guns, so I remained there and took charge of the battery, breaking out the ready service ammunition, forming an ammunition train and getting the starboard guns firing, local control.

The ship had received three or four torpedo hits which threw oil and water all over the decks, which combined with the list to -- approximately 25° -- made footing very precarious. Due to the list of the ship, the port gun crews were brought to starboard as their guns would not elevate sufficiently. The air to the guns had gone out, which necessitated depression for hand loading. While the guns were in action, several bombs dropped on or near the ship, but the discipline on the guns was excellent. […]

Lieutenant Commander J.H. Harper saw me and told me to go to the bridge and bring down the Captain who was wounded.

Lieutenant C.V. Ricketts, Ens. V. Delano, C.S.M. Siewert, D. Miller, M.Att.2c. and several signalmen were on the signal and flag bridges, in the immediate vicinity of the starboard admiral's walk where the Captain was lying.

The Captain's abdomen was cut apparently by a fragment of bomb, about three by four inches, with part of his intestines protruding. The Captain deserves the highest praise, for although he was in great pain, his only concern was for the ship and crew. […]

A serious oil fire from the galley spread to the mast structure, with flame and thick black smoke preventing our lowering the Captain forward of the conning tower although an unsuccessful attempt was made. The smoke and flames prevented us from seeing more than a foot or two, and the heat was intense. […]

The life jackets stowage and signal bags were burning by this time and Lt. Ricketts, Seiwert and I threw burning flags over the side. A fire hose was sent up by heaving line which I used to try to fight fire but the pressure was insufficient. By this time the bridge was burning to starboard, and the signal bridge all over.

Ens. Graham went up the starboard boat crane and sent over a line which we secured to the rail on the bridge and used to cross to the carne and thence to the boat deck. From then until relieved fought fire. […]

And this from a history of the West Virginia

The ship's commanding officer, Capt. Mervyn S. Bennion, arrived on his bridge early in the battle, only to be struck down by a bomb fragment hurled in his direction when a 15-inch "bomb" hit the center gun in Tennessee's Turret II, spraying that ship's superstructure and West Virginia's with fragments.

Bennion, hit in the abdomen, crumpled to the deck, mortally wounded, but clung tenaciously to life until just before the ship was abandoned, involved in the conduct of the ship's defense up to the last moment of his life. For his conspicuous devotion to duty, extraordinary courage, and complete disregard of his own life, Capt. Bennion was awarded a Medal of Honor.

The West Virginia was later raised from the bottom and repaired. It took part in actions off the Philippines, Okinawa and Iwo Jima. By the war's end, it had earned five battle stars.

On August 31, 1945 the West Virginia sailed into Tokyo Bay. It was thus a "witness" two days later to Japan's formal surrender aboard the USS Missouri.

The West Virginia's website is here. It's well worth a visit.

I can never find the right words to properly express my admiration and appreciation for our military men and woman. Their service and sacrifices make our freedoms possible and protect much of the world from becoming like North Korea or Sudan.

Michelle Malkin and Rich Moran posted outstanding tributes that include photos and links.

The Raleigh News & Observer recently published two beautifully written remembrance stories: “Living links to Pearl Harbor wane” and “Seeking peace at Pearl.” They're examples of American journalism at its best.

Gustafson help: "Thanks"

Bless those who pointed out links in the post "Duke prof on Steel" were "bad" and showed me the way to get them right.

They’re fixed now.

I'll try to do better in the future but please continue to watch out for me.

Again, thanks.

John

The Churchill Series – Dec. 6, 2006

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

On the night of December 7, 1941 Churchill was having dinner with the American Ambassador, John G. Winant. Martin Gilbert’s account in Churchill and America of the evening includes the following:

”I turned on my small wireless set shortly after the nine o’clock news had started,” Churchill later wrote. “There were a number of items about the fighting on the Russian front and on the British front on Libya, at the end of which some few sentences were spoken regarding an air attack by the Japanese on American at Hawaii, and also Japanese attacks on British vessels in the Dutch East Indies. …

Winant later recalled the ensuing scene. “We looked at one another incredulously. Then Churchill jumped to his feet and started for the door with the announcement, ‘We shall declare war on Japan’”

Gilbert’s account continues:

Winant added: “There is nothing half-hearted or un-positive about Churchill – certainly not when he is on the move. Without ceremony I too left the table and followed him out of the room. ‘Good God,’ I said, ’You can’t declare war on a radio announcement’

He stopped and looked at me half-seriously, half-quizzically, and then said quietly, ‘What shall I do?’

The question was asked not because he needed me to tell him what to do, but as a courtesy to the representative of the country attacked. I said, ‘I will call up the President by telephone and ask him what the facts are.’ And he added, ‘And I shall talk with him too.’”

Roosevelt and Churchill did talk. Roosevelt confirmed the attack (“We are all in the same boat now.”) and said he would ask Congress the next day to declare war. Churchill promised Britain would declare war “within the hour” of Congress’ war declaration.

A few minutes after their conversation ended, Churchill’s principal private secretary informed him the Admiralty had just confirmed that Japanese forces were attacking British bases in Malaya.
_________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 240-244)

Marlette and Anderson letters text

Two outstanding letters appear in the Dec. 7 Durham Herald Sun. One is by Professor William Anderson whose writings on the Duke Hoax injustices many of you have read. The other is by someone I don't know, Graham Hayes Marlette.

Both letters are available now online at the H-S's site. However, the H-S generally "pulls" letters off its site after a day or two.

Since letters to the editor are not subject to newspaper copyright, I'm republishing the letters in full below so they'll remain available online.
__________________________________________________

The truth in Brooklyn

Duke professor Thomas J. Crowley, in his letter of Dec. 1, is right to apologize for his uninformed remarks about the Duke lacrosse case. As a strong supporter of Duke and its faculty, I have been appalled to read opinion pieces by academics who apparently know nothing about the rule of law. Their writings about this case, mostly in The Herald-Sun, reveal a callous disregard for the suffering of the accused students and their families.

Just as the foundation of our justice system is the presumption of innocence of any accused, the foundation of learning must be the quest for truth, the search for evidence in order to support a given position. Instead, what we read from the worst of these writers are self-righteous platitudes, dripping with political correctness that is based on nothing but their personal dislike of male athletes and the bizarre notion that it is not possible for a woman to lie about being raped.

Professor Crowley is also right to call for the lifting of "standards of justice" in Durham. There is a law professor at Brooklyn College who is teaching a course about prosecutorial misconduct and the miscarriage of justice based entirely on the facts of the Duke lacrosse case.

Perhaps these uninformed academicians could take a sabbatical to Brooklyn so that they could find out what is actually going on here in Durham.

Graham Hayes Marlette
Durham
December 7, 2006

Free the 'Duke 3'

In reading The Herald-Sun editorials and letters to the editor, I see how the paper has framed the Duke lacrosse case and evidence, especially exculpatory evidence.

For example, we hear that the accuser told multiple stories, and that constitutes "proof" that a rape occurred because she must have been so traumatized that she could not remember what had happened.

Then we are given Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's 33-page account, from memory, that claims the accuser told a consistent story. That too, according to many in Durham (and The New York Times) constitutes "proof" that the "Duke 3" are guilty of rape. Of course, those two different accounts are mutually exclusive, but we are told that both are equally true and valid.

Likewise, we hear from District Attorney Mike Nifong that the accuser was too badly injured to work. When we find she was on the job immediately, we are told that people who are raped go right back to work. Two mutually-exclusive statements, both are said to be "proof" of a rape.

In other words, if there is exculpatory evidence, then it is explained away by an insistence that mutual exclusivity means both things must have happened simultaneously, which is a logical absurdity and in most cases would be seen as evidence that there was no rape.

So, let's face it. The Herald-Sun, and Durham in general, simply want to railroad a conviction, not find the truth. No wonder Professor K.C. Johnson calls Durham "Wonderland."

William L. Anderson
Cumberland, Md.
December 7, 2006

Help wanted on post links

I posted here on Duke Professor Michael Gustafson’s comments regarding Robert K. Steel's dual roles as Duke BOE Chairman and Undersecretary of the Treasury.

In that post I linked once to Gustafson’s bio page and twice to his blog post where he commented re: Steel.

Some of you report the link to Gustafson’s bio “works” but the links to his Steel post comments don’t.

I’ve had the same experience.

I’ve tried to make things right using the following URLs:

To Gustafson's bio page:

http://www.ece.duke.edu/faculty/profile.php?id=178

To his blog post comments:

http://www.xanga.com/DukeEgr93/553301019/pictures-and-thousands-of-words.html

When I do that, I can link to his bio but the blog post comments URL takes me to his bio.

That's the same problem some of you are having.

Is there anyone who can help?

I’ll appreciate it.

Thanks.

John

"Wanted"/"Vigilante" delay

I'd planned to begin today a three post series concerning the malicious "Wanted" (text only; produced by Durham CrimeStoppers) and "Vigilante" (text and graphics, including face photos of 43 white Duke's Men's lacrosse players; source(s) not publicly known) posters which appeared in late March.

I need to delay the series. My new start date is Monday, Dec.11.

Researching for the posts has been much more time consuming than I'd anticipated.

I'm sorry for the delay. Thank you for your understanding.

John

Duke prof on Steel

The Washington Post and historian and blogger KC Johnson are among those who've called attention to conflict of interest concerns involving Robert K. Steel's dual roles as undersecretary of the Treasury and chairman of Duke University's Board of Trustees.

Today, Michael Gustafson, a professor in Duke's Pratt School of Engineering, adds his voice to the discussion. At his Blog of Convenience he's posted "Pictures, and Thousands of Words." Here's some of what Gustafson says:

This is not the time for Duke to have a leader who must walk on eggshells to avoid any sense of conflict of interest. If, for example, Duke wants to oppose the City of Durham regarding rezoning, or rebuilding Central Campus - we now have a Chairman who must either remain silent or face headlines the next morning, "Federal Official Applies Pressure to Durham - Uses Leverage to Promote Duke."

And, heaven forbid anyone decides to look into the claims of prosecutorial misconduct in the lacrosse case or Duke-Durham relations with respect to allegations of improper behavior by the Durham Police Department. Though, I suppose that's not really going to happen. Maybe in the next round of committees, we can create an "Off-Campus Culture Initiative."

You can read the entire post here. It includes a link to a story in today's Chronicle concerning Steel's dual roles.

Gustufson has commented often on aspects of the Hoax Case. He's always been well-informed and on point. He also impresses me as someone who cares deeply about Duke and his students.

Anderson on the Hoax

Early on in the Duke-Nifong Hoax Case professor and columnist William Anderson began calling attention to the travesties and injustices of DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham police officers. Anderson says their actions reflect a corrupt justice system in Durham that's representative of a corrupt justice system in America.

I wouldn't go as far as Anderson in faulting America's court system but he's certainly on target when he points out how often police, prosecutors and the courts fail to deliver justice or even an approximation of it. And in the case of the three young man wrongly indicted in Durham, those failures have been especially egregious.

Anderson’s posted a column explaining why the Hoax Case matters so much to him. I hope you give it a look.

Anderson’s column reminded me I hadn’t put up a post I’d written a week ago about his previous column. So I'm posting it now, just below this.

My week old post's a “hats off” to Anderson for asserting a standard of justice now rejected by people like Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley and Duke’s faculty “Group of 88.”

John
_________________________________________

Post title: “Anderson: Against and For”

Not-Duke Professor William “Bill” Anderson writes often on what he calls “The Duke Non-Rape case.”

Bill recently wrote:

[The] courtroom is a place where we are supposed to find that thing called "truth," at least how truth applies to the events being examined.

Obviously, it often is difficult to find "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," given human limitations and the predilections of people to lie, but nonetheless those people who are officers of the court and those who testify under oath are expected to be truthful….

Furthermore, the rules of the courtroom require prosecutors to present a truthful rendition, or at least a reasonable account, of what occurred. For example, if I am on trial for robbery, the prosecutor first must establish that an actual robbery occurred, and, second, that I was the one who committed the act. He or she is not legally free to concoct an event that never occurred, and then pick me out at random to bring charges.

That prosecutors might do such a thing does not change the fact that such conduct is illegal.

How do you feel about what Anderson is saying? Do you think he’s right? Or are you against what he’s saying?

Let’s do a “for and against” and then wrap the post.

Against: Shadee Malkulou, a Duke senior and Women’s Studies and Cultural Anthropology double major. In the Durham Herald Sun Malkulou recently wrote:

”Much of the emphasis on [the lacrosse players’] ‘innocence’ has ignored the gender and racial prejudice of the March 13 party. If nothing else, Nifong is holding the lacrosse players accountable for that; and as a woman at Duke who knows just how much these men get away with, I’m thankful.”

Malaklou’s position is clear. She approves of Nifong ignoring people’s “innocence” when he uses his police and court powers to punish people she wants punished.

Now, speaking for what Bill Anderson wrote we have Winston Churchill who in 1902, while sitting in his first Parliament, took up the cause of a group of Royal Military College cadets who’d been punished as a group for “remaining silent” regarding a series of arson fires. The cadets, twenty-seven in all, were sent down from the college without any individual inquiries or hearings.

In a letter to The Times of London, Churchill invoked on the cadets’ behalf what he reminded readers were the “three cardinal principles” of equity:

“that suspicion in not evidence; that accused should be heard in their own defense; and that it is for the accuser to prove his charge, not for the defendant to prove his innocence.”

Wrap:Lately when I've read Churchill’s words,

“and that it is for the accuser to prove his charge, not for the defendant to prove his innocence.,”

I've thought of Duke President Richard H. Brodhead’s belief that a trial is the place where three young men will have the burden to be “proved innocent.”

If Churchill were here, he would remind President Brodhead and others such as Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley and Raleigh News & Observer editorial page editor Steve Ford there’s a name for countries where the trial burden is on the accused to be “proved innocenct.” They’re called “police states.”
________________________________________________
Source note: The Herald Sun, as far as I know, never put Maluklou's op-ed online. It ran in the H-S on Nov. 19. Regarding the Sandhurst episode and Churchill's letter, I relied on Martin Gilbert's Churchill:A Life (pgs. 148-149. It's still in print and available at many public libraries.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson153.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson152.html

The Churchill Series – Dec. 5, 2006

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

If today you could ask Churchill one question, what would it be?

Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, was recently asked that question during an interview conducted by Canadian Broadcasting Company news anchor Peter Mansbridge.

Mansbridge prefaced his question by reminding CBC viewers that Gilbert’s written not only a multivolume life of Churchill but more than a dozen other Churchill books. What’s more, Mansbridge said, it’s been estimated the total of Churchill documents Gilbert’s read weigh 15 tons.

And what question would Gilbert ask Churchill. Gilbert said:

”It would be a question he asked [in his lifetime] and I'd like to know what his answer would be. He asked a friend, ‘Do you think I spent too much energy on the German question and not enough on the Soviet question toward the end of the war?’ “

I don’t know anything about Mansbridge other than what I learned from reading a post by Canadian blogger Mike Campbell who quoted from his interview with Gilbert. But I’ll say this much: Mansbridge followed Gilbert’s answer with the question that was surely on most viewers minds: “What do you think [Churchill’s] answer would be?”

Gilbert responded:

”I'd like to feel that it would be 'No,' that he did his best but he was a very self-critical person so he probably feels that he did fail in that regard.”

What Gilbert says is, we know, speculative but it’s very informed speculation by arguably the person now alive who “knows” Churchill best.”

And once again - If today you could ask Churchill one question, what would it be?

What McClancy told The N&O

On April 2 the Raleigh News & Observer published its infamous “Vigilante” poster photo containing the names and face photos of 43 white Duke lacrosse players. We did not know then the DNA results would be negative; and we were many weeks away from learning about the rigged identification procedure in which, as Duke Law professor James Coleman said, “there could be no wrong answers.”

So on April 3 when N&O reader John McClancy left a comment at 17:43 on this post thread at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog he knew nothing about the DNA results or the identification travesty.

With that in mind, let’s look at some what McClancy said Apr. 3 to the N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill:

Instead of focusing on the facts, your paper trades in classic yellow journalist, pandering to sensationalism to sell newspapers regardless of the cost of another’s reputation or safety.

The only thing that is clear is that the woman had sex. It has not been established who she had sex with or under what conditions, or that it even occurred at the party at all.

Yet the News and Observer, both through your columnists and bias (sic) reporting, continues to inflame the community. The players are castigated and defamed merely for exercising their constitutional rights to follow their attorneys’ wise council.

As a journalist, would you treat exercising the first amendment with the same contempt?

Refusing to comment, especially to a reporter, is not an admission of guilt or even of knowledge of a crime: it is simply good sense! Or do you really expect them to trust the balanced reporting of the News and Observer? […]

After Duke wisely removed the players’ photographs from the website for their own safety, the News and Observer published them so that anyone not getting to the website in time would still have names and faces.

Most, if not all, of these young men may not have been involved in any way, but the News and Observer has lead the way in making them all targets in an emotionally charged and racially divided community.

It may be that this woman’s story is the absolute truth. Even so, the perpetrators deserve their day in court. And those who may be completely innocent deserve to be able to go on with their lives without fear of becoming the victim of a reprisal because of your need to sell newspapers.

Duke University’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, has said last March and April were a “very confusing” time.

N&O reader John McClancy doesn't sound very confused, does he?

I hope McClancy sees this.

A parachute for Ashley?

Many Durham people who’ve watched Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley since he took over the paper two years ago say he has his eye out for a position with Duke University’s News Service or a public information office at one of Duke’s graduate schools or its medical center.

Under Ashley’s editorship advertising revenue and circulation have dropped significantly. H-S weekday and Sunday circulations are down by more than a third while Durham’s economy is strong and its population growing. And of course, the Duke Hoax story has played out these past nine months smack in the middle of the H-S’s circulation area.

The privately held Paxton Media Group, which owns the H-S, has announced no turn-around plan. In fact, the paper doesn’t discuss with readers its revenue and circulation problems. As people have left the H-S, their positions have often not been filled.

“It doesn’t make me happy to say this but the Herald Sun is in a death spiral,” a journalist friend told me. “Ashley’s got to be looking for a parachute. He knows he won’t get a gold one or maybe any kind from Paxton so a Duke Blue one is what he’s reaching for.”

A long-time H-S reader who’s recently taken up blog reading said this:

“Your ‘three suspects’ blog friends (“the three suspects” are what I sometimes call the three Duke Hoax blogs I read daily: Durham-in-Wonderland, Johnsville News and Liestoppers. – JinC) do some great work. But they’re missing something. For at least the last year Ashley’s edited that paper with a Duke job in mind.

Think about it, John. Ashley’s been critical of the lacrosse players. He’s had nothing bad to say about how the Durham police treat Duke kids differently than other citizens. He boosts Nifong and says we need a trial. He slammed the 60 Minutes episode. All that’s ‘beautiful music’ at the Allen Building [President Brodhead and other top Duke administrators offices' are in the Allen Building. – JinC].

I'm not saying there's any spoken quid pro quo. I don't think there is. But Ashley knows everyone at Duke can read. I think he hopes they'll appreciate what he's doing.

I’ve thought a lot about all of this, especially since I read KC Johnson's Durham-in-Wonderland post “Steel Trap” and then took a look at what the Winston-Salam Journal and the H-S did with the same story.

First, KC’s post which he published on Dec. 1.[excerpts]

This morning’s Washington Post provides a troubling article on Steel’s new dual role—he is serving as undersecretary of the Treasury while remaining as Duke Board chairman. In fact, the paper reveals that Steel said that he would accept the Treasury job only if allowed to remain as BOT chairman. […]

The Post story features a long line of quotes from specialists in government ethics denouncing Steel’s action. NYU professor Paul C. Light said that Steel should resign from the Duke board, as “the potential conflicts are significant. His positions violate the spirit of the law that separates public and private service.”

Three other ethics experts, from varying ideological viewpoints, were more direct:

“It’s a conflict of interest,” said Thomas J. Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group. “In his role as the chairman of the Board of Trustees, there will be decisions he will make that will be in conflict with his role as a high-level government official.”

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, agreed. “The concept of having a government job is that you work only on behalf of the American people, and being a trustee creates a divided loyalty,” she said.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, added: “He’s creating the very real possibility that he will face situations where he has not just the appearance of a conflict but the reality of a conflict and then will have to decide how to behave. There will always be questions about whether he handled that kind of situation appropriately.”

The obvious conflict: how can Steel avoid choosing between his fiduciary responsibilities as chairman of the Duke trustees and his position at Treasury? [...]

On Dec. 2 the Winston-Salam Journal published the Post story in full.

Ashley’s Herald Sun told readers nothing about the Post story either on Dec. 1 or 2.

Then on Dec. 3 the H-S headlined: “Steel: Dual roles won't conflict” (subscription req’d)

[Excerpts]:

Duke University Board of Trustees Chairman Robert K. Steel says he will recuse himself from committees and issues that may be perceived as conflicting interests with the chairman's new job, undersecretary of the Treasury Department in charge of domestic finance.[...]

After receiving the nomination for the position from President George W. Bush in September, Steel immediately checked to ensure he could keep both jobs, Duke President Richard Brodhead said. Steel made it clear to all involved he would not take the government job if it meant he had to step down from his role at Duke. [...]

Asked Saturday to respond to the criticisms of government watchdog groups who questioned the propriety of his new dual role, Steel promised he would no longer be involved with university fundraising or Duke's management company DUMAC, and would recuse himself from any other committees that might give the appearance of a conflict.

The university's upcoming capital campaign will likely be handled by the 34 other trustees Steel said would be able step in if needed.

Upon being offered the Treasury job, Steel alerted the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Office of Government Ethics of his position at Duke immediately after being offered the position "so there would be no secrets," he said.

Four separate government agencies went on to give the arrangement their approval, according to Duke Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John Burness.

If there was a conflict of interest, one of those groups would have said so, Steel maintained.

"I don't know how to be more open or honest," Steel said.[...]

There's more but none of it includes quotes from the experts the Post cited or anyone else questioning Steel's dual role.

Ashley doesn't even specifically mention the Post story. We just get a reference to "criticisms of government watchdog groups" which the H-S story goes on to knock down.

The H-S story reads like a press release someone on Steel's staff would draft responding to the Post's story and being careful not to alert anyone to the actual story itself. It's a neat PR trick but disreputable journalism.

Ashley is a Duke alum who likes to tell community groups about his love for his alma mater and Durham.

What are your thoughts on Ashley's editorship? And what about a Duke Blue parachute?

The Churchill Series – Dec. 4, 2006

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

Frequent readers of this series know I often quote passages from the works of Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert. I thought it might be interesting, therefore, to offer something today about Gilbert himself.

So here are excerpts from an interview a writer for an Ottawa, Canada newspaper conducted shortly after the publication of Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life.

Everyone asks Gilbert if he ever actually met Churchill. Regrettably, no. But as a schoolboy he regularly went to the House of Commons and watched him in action, and one night stood outside No. 10 ("You can’t do that now of course") when Churchill gave a dinner party on his resignation.

Gilbert had, of course, met Clementine. "I used to read chapters to her once a month. She insisted I look at all their private letters. . . . She imposed no censorship whatsoever and let anything be used. . . . She felt he was a large enough man to survive things that were not so creditable. You did not need to whitewash someone like him."

The sheer volume of their correspondence amazes even Gilbert. "When he came to Canada, in 1929, every night he would write eight or nine pages to her, and in the trenches during the war, while his fellow officers were sleeping, he would write her five or six pages every night."

Gilbert himself did not have an official assistant for years — "I couldn’t afford one" — until enough money was sprung loose for a graduate researcher on a three months’ trial. He married her.

"We both read all the documents (most of which are photo-copied because of the risk of loss). I write my next chapter and she reads it and points out anything I may have left out. Sometimes she suggests re-writing." The eighth volume is dedicated to her; the new book, to his two children. It was Suzy, his wife, who recently made a drastic alteration to Gilbert’s writing habits.

Over the years a total of 40 books, which include definitive works on the Holocaust and 12 historical atlases, Gilbert has always written longhand, in pen and ink on the right-side pages only, leaving space for alterations on the left. But two years ago when he started on Churchill: A Life, his wife presented him with a personal computer.

The entire interview is here.

Hat tip: The Churchill Centre

Ashley’s “integrity”

Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley writes often about integrity and character. He says they’re very important. He wants us to have good character and act with integrity.

So let’s see how Bob responds to the following email.

_________________________________________

Robert Ashley
Editor
Durham Herald Sun

Dear Editor Ashely:

Your Dec. 3 edition carried the story below under the headline “Duke's trustees create new department.” Herald Sun readers were told the story is “From staff reports.”

But if you go to the Duke News site, you’ll find this press release: “Duke Elevates African and African American Studies to Department.”

With the exception of a slight rewording in the first sentence, every single bit of the Herald Sun’s story is lifted verbatim from the Duke News press release.

Questions:

Why did you poach the story from Duke News in the first place?

Having poached, why did you tell readers the story was “From staff reports?”

How do you square what your paper did with the Duke press release with your frequent admonitions to readers to act with integrity and character?

I’ll publish your response at my blog.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
www.johnincarolina.com
____________________________________________

“Duke's trustees create new department.”

From staff reports : The Herald-Sun
Dec 2, 2006 : 10:04 pm ET

Duke University's Board of Trustees approved elevating Duke's African and African American Studies Program to departmental status at its Saturday meeting.

"As the mission of AAAS has expanded, it has become appropriate to graduate from program status to that of a full department," said Dean of the Faculty of Arts Sciences George McLendon.

Academic departments at Duke offer undergraduate and graduate degrees. Because the AAAS program currently offers an undergraduate degree and a graduate certificate, it already functions much like a department, said Arts and Sciences Dean of the Social Sciences Sarah Deutsch.

"And it became clear that in circles outside of Duke, the label 'program' carried connotations of impermanence and standing that were not applicable to our program," she said. "The shift to 'department' better represents Duke's commitment to the enterprise, and the standing and activity of the unit."

The university's Academic Programs Committee unanimously approved the change at its Oct. 25 meeting, and in a resolution commended AAAS "for its quality research and undergraduate programs. The AAAS faculty, including those with joint and secondary appointments, have demonstrated an admirable commitment to advanced research, teaching and outreach activities that deserves recognition."

The Academic Programs Committee also encouraged AAAS to consider establishing a Ph.D. program in the future.

AAAS has 15 core faculty members. Some 50 other Duke faculty members, whose teaching, research and cross-listed courses contribute to scholarship in AAAS, are designated as faculty affiliates. Currently, 33 undergraduate students major in African and African American Studies, 22 undergraduates minor in it and 24 graduate students are enrolled in the graduate certificate program.

In related business, the trustees also approved several new academic programs, including two new dual degree programs at Duke Law School: a three-year JD/DESS (diplôme d'études supérieures spécialisées) in global business law in partnership with two top French universities, and a JD/MEMP (Masters of Engineering Management) in cooperation with Duke's Pratt School of Engineering.

The Global Business Law JD/DESS degree program is a partnership with University of Paris I and with Sciences Po in Paris. The program involves two years of study at Duke and one year in Paris, where students will enroll in primarily master's degree-level courses in global business law and economics and, if needed, an introduction to French law.

Duke joins a select group of American law schools in offering the JD/DESS, which is open to 20 French students and 10 U.S. students each year; law schools at Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Virginia also offer the program.

"Law practice in most fields is increasingly international and law graduates who have had meaningful international experience are highly sought after by U.S. law firms," said Duke Law School Dean Katharine Bartlett.

Establishing a dual degree in law and engineering management responds to a demand from applicants to Duke Law School and the Pratt School of Engineering, Bartlett said, and builds on the schools' existing partnership in which a three-year JD is offered in combination with an MS in engineering. Students enrolled in the new program will begin their studies in June instead of August, and will be required to complete 72 credits at the Law School and 30 in the Master of Engineering Management Program.

Currently, about 25 percent of Duke law students are enrolled in a dual degree program.

The trustees also approved:

- A new Joint Doctor of Medicine degree to be granted by the Duke/National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School. This collaboration, which was formalized in 2005, is not only intended to educate future physicians and promote biomedical research in Asia, but represents an opportunity for Duke to expand its global presence in science and medicine, said Victor Dzau, chancellor for health affairs at Duke and CEO of the Duke University Health System.

- The creation of a joint master of management studies degree involving the Fuqua School of Business and Seoul National University. Those SNU students accepted into the program would first attend SNU, then travel to Fuqua in the spring of their first year for Fuqua's final six-week term. This would be followed by a summer internship and a second year of study at Fuqua. At the conclusion of their course work, students would be issued an MMS from Fuqua. The students would receive their Masters of Business Administration degree from SNU once they completed other requirements.

Interesting USA Today story

I’ve just been searching to learn more about one of Collin Finnerty’s attorneys, Michael Cornacchia. The Raleigh News & Observer reports today ("DA's critics ask bar, feds to intervene"):

“[Cornacchia] wrote to the U.S. attorney general, the FBI director, the congressional delegations of North Carolina and Long Island and others, saying Nifong had violated the civil rights of the three players. The case merits an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote Cornacchia, a former prosecutor who recently served as chief investigative counsel for the probe of the United Nation's oil-for-food program.”

I found an April 19 USA Today story reporting on the court hearing Finnerty attended in Durham on April 18, the day after a grand jury indicted Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

The story includes a color photo of Finnerty leaving the courthouse with his father and Cornacchia, who is the man in suit and tie just behind Finnerty’s right shoulder.

USA Today makes no mention of Cornacchia but does quote a number of attorneys. Some are directly involved in the case. Others are not directly involved but were interviewed by USA Today to provide “background and context” for its story.

Two of the attorneys not directly involved but providing “background and context” are Duke Law School professors Erwin Chemerinsky and James Coleman.

Chemerinsky, Coleman and all the other attorneys USA Today quoted were speaking before any of them or us knew about a host of investigative travesties DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham police officers committed in order to obtain indictments of then two and later a third lacrosse player, David Evans. All three are clearly innocent of the charges.

I found it very interesting to read what the attorneys were saying more than eight months ago and then to consider what subsequently happened.

In Coleman's case we know that weeks after what we read on April 19 he'll release the Coleman Report. Also, that on June 12 he'll write a letter to the N&O calling on DA Mike Nifong to step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over the case.

Still later on 60 Minutes Coleman will describe in chilling detail the rigged identification procedures ("there could be no wrong answers") that were essential for the indictments; and which I feel comfortable saying were part of a deliberate frame-up of the indicted players.

In Chemerinsky's case some of you may not be aware that blogger and historian KC Johnson got him on the record speaking about the case in August.

Folks, I want to propose that you do something.

First, read the USA Today April 19 story bearing in mind all that the public, including Chemerinsky and Coleman, didn't know at that time.

Then read the letter Coleman wrote to the N&O almost two months later and Chemerinsky's comments reported in Johnson's post in August.

If you do that, I think most of you will say to yourselves something like:

"Chemerinsky and Coleman didn't come to the positions they came to because of 'what defense attorneys say'. So why do N&O editorial page editor Steve Ford and Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley use the "defense attorneys" excuse to justify their continued support of Nifong?"

I'll be interested to read your comments regarding the April 19 story and what followed.

“Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters

Duke lacrosse “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters played an important role in fueling the witch hunt and its monumental injustices. The posters helped inflame public opinion, provoked hate groups and unstable people, and endangered the players who were the posters’ targets.

In any request for a change of venue, in a trail that may follow and in other legal actions the poster will be used in evidence. So for anyone who will follow those proceedings as well as for everyone just wanting to know how such as wildly improbable hoax could have been believed by anyone with at least a room temperature IQ, knowing something about the posters is important.

Next Wednesday I’ll begin a three post series about the posters.

Here’s some of what the series will cover:

While many people use “Wanted” and “Vigilante” interchangeably suggesting they are one and the same, they’re not.

“Wanted” is the description of what is really a series of at least four posters produced by Durham CrimeStoppers.

All “Wanted” posters are text only; they offer cash rewards for information; and they are identified as having been produced by Durham CrimeStoppers, an organization that reports its independent of Durham’s Police Department, although the DPD has assigned Cpl. David Addison to work with CrimeStoppers. Addison produced the CS posters.

The first “Wanted” poster, produced and distributed in late March, is the subject of a request by an attorney, Alex Charns, acting on behalf of an unindicted lacrosse player for a public investigation by DPD into the production and distribution of the first “Wanted” poster and a full public apology by the City of Durham to the entire lacrosse team which Charns claims was libeled by the poster.

If, as DPD says, CrimeStoppers is a separate organization, why is Charns saying DPD should do an investigation and Durham City make an apology?

Charns contends CrimeStoppers is really part of DPD.

“Vigilante” is used to describe a poster which the Raleigh News & Observer published and distributed in photo form on Sunday, April 2. The N&O’s “Vigilante” poster differs in very important ways from the “Wanted” posters.

The “Vigilante” poster contains face photos of 43 white Duke lacrosse players; it is not a solicitation for information for money; it was posted on buildings on Duke campus and circulated in neighborhoods near campus; and it was published anonymously as “Vigilante” posters traditionally are.

Cpl. Addison is quoted on the N&O’s “Vigilante” poster. He was also quoted in the N&O’s inflammatory, grossly biased and now discredited March 25 “anonymous interview” story

In an interview in late May, DPD Maj. Lee Russ told me DPD would like to find out who produced and circulated the “Vigilante” poster.

There were then as now rumors in the community pointing to different sources for the “Vigilante” poster. Russ volunteered that no one in DPD had any connection to producing it.

For many months I’ve pressed the N&O for more information about a number of aspects of its publication of the “Vigilante” poster.

I really can’t tell you I’ve gotten much from the N&O. But I continue to ask for information.

I hope you come by and read the series.

Duke News Service sites

I recently mentioned contacting a Duke’s News Service site to ask a question. Some of you wanted to know more about the site and how to reach it.

I’m responding to that and also offering a some additional information.

You can access the University’s search engine with this address:
http://search.duke.edu/

Type a person’s name, a subject, etc. in the search box and you're on your way.

Type in “Duke lacrosse” and you’re taken to:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/

It’s a website the University describes as providing “updates and information about the incident, the university's response and the extensive media coverage”

The websites main page includes a link to a collection of sample media coverage that includes some “old ones and new ones.” It’s here:
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/media_archive.html

Just below that is an “Archive of Opinion.” You guessed it: op-eds, feature stories, editorials. Again, “oldies and newbies.”
http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/media_archive.html

The University seeks to provide a spectrum of news and opinion pieces. For the most part I think its done a good job of that. But the University should include news and opinion from blogs; and with very rare exceptions it hasn’t.

I'm going to continue to press Duke on its exclusion of blogs.

The main Duke News website is here:
http://dukenews.duke.edu/aboutus/index.html#jarmul

There is a lot of information provided there about a range of services Duke News offers and how to access them. There are also bio sketches with job functions for some of the News Service's key personnel.

As you scroll down you’ll see there are links to many more specialized information provider sites within Duke as well as links to many Duke publications including The Chronicle, the student newspaper and the alumni magazine.

There’s also a link to daily press releases with contact information here:
http://dukenews.duke.edu/2006/12/BoT.html

I hope you find the above information and links are helpful.

The Churchill Series – Dec. 1, 2006

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

On June 18, 1940, France began talks with Nazi Germany aimed at an armistice. That same day Churchill delivered first in Commons and later that evening on the radio his stirring speech ending with:

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years men will still say, “This was their finest hour.”

When we think of Churchill, those words and others from his speeches often come to mind.

But while those words represented his most deeply held feelings, they were part of his public rhetoric. He didn't, as we know, in everyday speech inform his Cabinet “This is our finest hour” or tell friends from time to time that “Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so many to so few.”

But I want to tell you about an expression Churchill used very often that he included in a BBC radio statement delivered the day before his “finest hour” speech. It is an old Boer folk expression Churchill learned while fighting the Boer at the turn of the century. He used it often when speaking, and it appears often in his letters. I’ve no doubt it was one of his favorite expressions.


Churchill delivered his statement, meant to both stiffen the resolve and reassure the British people, immediately following the BBC’s announcement that Raynaud’s government had fallen and been succeeded by one headed by Petain. The old Boer expression is found in the last seven words of Churchill’s statement:

The news from France is very bad, and I grieve for the gallant French people who have fallen into this terrible misfortune. Nothing will alter our feelings towards them or our faith that the genius of France will rise again.

What has happened in France makes no difference to our actions and purpose.

We have become the sole champions now in arms to defend the world cause. We shall do our best to be worthy of this high honour. We shall defend our island home, and with the British Empire we shall fight on unconquerable until the curse of Hitler is lifted from the brows of mankind.

We are sure that in the end all will come right.

Two comments that I think I’m making for just about all of us.

1) In that brief statement which took only a minute to deliver, we find the major themes he returned to again and again throughout 1940. Like Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, Churchill’s June 17 statement briefly and eloquently sounds the beliefs and purposes that justify great struggles and sacrifices.

2) We see again in this statement Churchill the master psychologist facing up to bad news but invoking pride, purpose and resolve ; and in his closing words reassuring the British people and pointing them toward the day of ultimate victory.
___________________________________
In haste. Sources to follow this weekend.

Note to Prof Crowley

As many of you know Duke University Professor Thomas J. Crowley recently published an op-ed in the Durham Herald Sun which contained a number of significant errors of both the factual and attributional type.

Bloggers and others contacted Crowley concerning the errors. I posted on some of them here and here.

Today the following letter appeared in the Herald Sun:

LACROSSE RETRACTION

On Nov. 13, The Herald-Sun published an "Other Voices" piece by me concerning the Duke lacrosse case. I have subsequently been informed of errors in that letter. In particular my blanket statement about behavior of the lacrosse team was neither fair in general nor applicable to the particular case now in dispute. I apologize for this and any other errors.

The response to my letter has made me more aware of the intense emotions that are associated with this case. These tensions can only be bad for campus-community relations, and I strongly support any efforts to reduce them. Finally, I sincerely hope that lessons learned from the lacrosse case will be applied to future cases in order to lift the standards of justice for all in Durham County.

THOMAS J. CROWLEY
Durham
December 1, 2006

The writer is a professor at Duke University.
___________________________________________________

I've just sent Professor Crowley the following email:

Dear Professor Crowley:

I hold two degrees from the University and blog here as John in Carolina.

I've recently posted on your Herald Sun op-ed "Don't be too quick to toss lacrosse case." I noted and spoofed some of its errors here and here. I stand by what I wrote.

I've also read today your Herald Sun letter. It is about your letter that I'm writing now.

I'm sure you'll agree that the "Make Mistakes" club has a universal membership; the "Recognize One's Mistakes" club has a much smaller membership; and the "Admit One's Mistakes Publicly and Make Amends as One Can" club sometimes seems to have few, if any, members.

But with your letter today, you placed yourself in that small but most honorable club.

My hat is off to you.

I hope you write back.

I'd look forward to further correspondence concerning how we can make the current situation better than it is at Duke, in Durham and, particularly, as regards what you call attention to at the close of your letter: lifting "the standards of justice for all in Durham County."

Best,

John in Carolina
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series – Nov. 30, 2006

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

Today’s the anniversary of Churchill’s birth at Blenheim Place in 1874.

The post which follows is the last of a three post series intended as a tribute to one of history’s great people. I’ve tried in the three posts to pay a well deserved tribute to Churchill but to do so with a little different “take” than the typical Churchill tributes which note his best known and most important public achievements.

We know Churchill didn’t suffer fools gladly and coulld sometimes be gruff. But at core he was a very kind person who often went out of his way to help those less fortunate than he. And he almost always did it outside the public spotlight.

Consider how he treated Mr and Mrs Donkey Jack.

The Jacks (they picked up “Donkey” because they owned one) were gypsies who had an encampment on common last that adjourned Chartwell property. Property owners then and now in England often pressure their town councils and other government agencies to clear gypsies off common land so they’ll leave the area.

Churchill didn’t do that. He was content to have the Jacks as neighbors. Clementine felt the same way.

But Churchill didn’t just leave the Jacks be. He often helped them.

When Mr Jack died in 1933 he was to be buried in a pauper’s grave. Churchill arranged and paid for a funeral and proper burial.

In October, 1934 Mrs. ‘Donkey’ Jack received notice of eviction by the local council. Churchill gave her permission to move her encampment into Chartwell woodland.

On New Year’s Day, 1935 Churchill wrote to Clementine, then on a cruise in Asia:

Mrs Donkey Jack will very likely never be able to walk again as it is unlikely her fractured ankle will knit together at her age. She was knocked down by a workman on a push bicycle and no compensation of any kind can be obtained for her in this desperate misfortune.

Should the worst be realized I shall try and get her into a decent home for the rest of her days at some small cost. …

In the same letter Churchill told Clementine that their indebtedness was not as great at the end of 1934 as it had been at the start. He said if all went well he thought they could further reduce their debts by the end of 1935.

A few weeks later in another letter he tells Clumentine:

While I was working on the new wall today Mrs Donkey Jack come walking along having trudged all the way from Westerham [ A village a bit less than 2 miles from Chartwell. – JinC] upon her injured ankle.

She was proposing to walk down there again tonight to get her pensions arrears which have accumulated while she was in hospital

I stopped this and we supplied her with food until Monday. …

Mrs Jack continued to live on the Churchills' property and he continued to look after her until her death a few years later.
_____________________________________________
In haste now. I'll provide sources this weekend.

Cash Michaels responds

Readers' Note:

On Monday I posted "About DA Mike Nifong." I asked columnist Cash Michaels to respond to it. He has. Below is first the "About DA Mike Nifong" post in case you're "just walking in." Then Michaels' response. Then an email I'm about to send him saying "thank you" and touching a few other matters.

John
___________________________________________________

Random House’s Unabridged Dictionary defines knifing as “to attempt to defeat or undermine in a secret or underhanded way.”

And in Wilmington Journal columnist Cash Michaels’ most recent column (online) we find this paragraph:

Duke Three supporters have also blasted Pres. Brodhead for not speaking out against what they believe to be a “false prosecution” of the defendants by Durham District Attorney Mike Knifing, based on reportedly scant evidence and an allegedly corrupted police photo ID lineup. (bold added)

Well, what do you think? Understandable typo of the kind we all make or did Michaels intend to just come right out and ......?

I plan to drop Michaels an email later today and ask him.

I’ll let you know what I hear back.

In the meantime, if Dr. Freud reads this, I hope he'll comment.

I found Michaels’ column at Friends of Duke University’s media links page.
_______________________________________________

Now Michaels' email:

Dear John in Carolina:

Thank you for your missive. Your website, along with Liestoppers and Durham-in-Wonderland, is one of the more respectful, if not respectable Duke Three supportive sites. Doesn't mean I always agree, but I do approve of the civil tone in comparison with Johnsville News and others.

I actually saw your site regarding the "Mike Knifing" typo when you posted, so I was aware of it.

To your questions:

Because it was a banquet (and a longrunning one at that, the was no Q & A with Duke University Pres. Brodhead at the Durham NAACP function. Since I left before it ended (indeed it still may be going on), I did not get a chance to private speak with Pres. Brodhead.

Currently, I have no plans to interview him. My coverage has been more process and issue oriented. I beleive his message to Durham's Black community was clear - there should be a presumption of innocence; we shouldn't allow the explosive allegations to tear Durham apart; and this episode tests all that the civil rights movement taught us.

Any more, let me know.

Cash Michaels
____________________________________________

Dear Cash:

Thanks for responding fully and promptly.

Your editor, Mary Alice Jervay Thatch, let me know it was as most people thought the sort of typo we all make. She asked that I link to the corrected column and that's done by virtue of my reposting here my first post which contains a link to your column.

I appreciate your grouping me with Durham-in-Wonderland and Liestoppers. I think it shows that at least in this instance you've been a kind rather than tough judge.

About Johnsville News I hope we can agree to disagree.

JiC readers will appreciate your answers to my questions as do I.

Are you planning to post on KC Johnson's "Green Light for Nifong" and "The Stubbornnes of Facts" posts? I think many people would be interested to learn your take on them.

For my part, while I don't agree with KC every time, I have great respect for his reporting and commentary. I think his two latest posts take our understanding of the events last March and April to a new level.

Again, Cash, thank you.

Best,

John

The Churchill Series – Nov. 29, 2006

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

This is the second of a three part series in recognition of Churchill birthday, November 30. In each post I’m try to provide a “snapshot” of Churchill at some moment in his life. I mean the “snapshots” to honor the man but I also mean them to provide something different from the typical and well deserved Churchill birthday tributes.

Today’s post focuses on a extremely important contribution Churchill made to the Allied victory in WW II. But it’s not the brilliant, resolute leadership he provided as Prime Minister when “England stood alone” we’ll be talking about. Instead we’ll go back to 1919 and examine something Churchill did then that subsequently proved vital to Britain’s victory in WWII.

In January 1919 the Prime Minister, Lloyd George, appointed Churchill Secretary of State for War and Air. The most immediate and important problem Churchill faced was arranging for the demobilizing of the millions of men from the Army. But another problem had to do with the Royal Air Force.

At the outbreak of WW I the Army and Navy each had their air services which both used primarily for reconnaissance tasks. As the war progressed the size of the air services grew; and along with that grew all the problems of building, maintaining, and providing trained personnel to fly and service the planes. Both the Army and Navy struggled to support their air services. When it was suggested that a separate air service be created to manage the various demands of the growing air services the Army and Navy quickly agreed to pass over the tasks to a newly formed Royal Air Force.

But with the Armistice and peace came the Army and Navy’s demand that the Royal Air Force be deactivated and its functions returned to them. RAF officers objected and made the case for a separate service.

Initially, it seemed the older services would carry the argument; and the RAF would cease to function as a separate service. But Churchill weighed in on the RAF’s side. If was a struggle of many months but eventually the government adopted Churchill’s view and the RAF was preserved as a separate service.

Fast forward now to the summer of 1940 and the Battle of Britain. For many weeks it was uncertain the RAF would win the battle. In the end, the RAF’s victory was, as Wellington said of his victory at Waterloo, a “close run thing.”

The RAF in 1940 was just strong enough to win. If it hadn’t been a separate service for the previous 20 years it would not have been as strong as it was. So we can fairly say one of those made victory possible in the Battle of Britain was the man who was Secretary of State for War and Air in 1919.
_______________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. ( use the index to locate the issues discussed here)

Are Americans Cheap?

That’s the question ABC correspondent and 20/20 anchor John Stossel considers in an column posted at Realclearpolitics.com. Excerpts:

The New York Times and Washington Post editorialize about America's "stinginess." Former President Jimmy Carter says when it comes to helping others, "The rich states don't give a damn."

Standing outside the White House, the singer Bono told the press that America doesn't do enough to help the needy.

It seems obvious to Bono and President Carter that America offers "crumbs" because the governments of most other wealthy countries distribute a larger percentage of their nations' wealth in foreign aid.

Yes, the U.S. government gave out $20 billion last year, much more than other countries give, but that's only because we are so stupendously wealthy. If you calculate foreign aid as a percentage of our wealth, the United States gives much less than others.[…]

I hope nobody’s getting “steamed” at Stossel. He’s just laying out the case.

Stossel continues:

But wait a second ... when talking aid,[why]talk just about what the government gives? Why conflate America with our government? America is the people. …

America is 300 million private individuals, and their contributions far exceed what government gives. When you include those, America is anything but cheap.

After the Asian Tsunami two years ago, the U.S. government pledged $900 million to tsunami relief. American individuals donated $2 billion -- three times what government gave -- in food, clothing, and cash. Private charities could barely keep up with the donations.

Americans' preference for voluntary contributions over forced giving through government is one way in which Americans differ from other people. (Don't think it's forced? See what happens if you don't pay your taxes.)

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks's new book, "Who Really Cares", points out that Americans give more than the citizens of any other country.

Individually, Americans give seven times more money than people in Germany and 14 times more than Italians give. We also volunteer more. …

Strossel says a lot more before closing with:

America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child.

Of course some people give nothing. Some people are cheap. Which raises the question: Who gives and who doesn't? I'll report on that in my next column.

I’ll be looking for Stossel’s next column. If you see it first, please give me a heads up. I want to post on it. You can read all of his first column here.

Meanwhile, some thoughts:

A huge part of America’s “giving” is the human and finaccial costs of our military. Without America's military sheilding it , what would most of the rest of the world be like?

We know the answer: Darfur, Zimbabwe and North Korea. It certainly wouldn’t be like Europe, Berkeley or your nearby comfy college campus where military recruiters are banned.

The military services and sacrifices of literally tens of millions of Americans during the last century and through today have made the world a much better place than it would otherwise be.

What price can you put on that service and those sacrifices? The trillions Americans have spent since WW II shielding much of the world doesn’t begin to get at the real “costs” Americans have paid out.

American higher education is heavily taxpayer subsidized. Contribute to your favorite private college and you take a tax deduction for what you gave. The burden of the lost tax revenue resulting from your contribution is passed on to other taxpayers.

Americans cheer those who give to private colleges. That’s fine. But people like Jimmy Carter and Bono should keep that in mind when they’re doing their “giving math.”

The Carters and Bonos should also remember that each year Americans welcome to our shores great numbers of foreign citizens who come here and study and train at taxpayer subsidized colleges and universities.

When they complete their educations, most of those foreign citizens will return to their home countries where they’ll offer their fellow citizens the benefits of the education and training they received in America.

Has anyone ever calculated the amount of the taxpayer subsidized dollars that in any given year go into the cost of the education and training of foreign citizens?

That most of us haven’t even thought of that question is a testament to the generosity and good will of the American people.

There is a lot more I could say, but I’ll end here.

What are your thoughts on all of this?

The Tragedy at Duke: Part I

A KC Johnson post today provides a detailed, gripping account of how key Duke University administrators acted when confronted with what was on its face a wildly improbable story involving the gang-rape of a black exotic dancer by a group of white Duke students during a party at a University owned house.

Johnson’s account is based “on e-mail or personal discussions with more than two dozen participants in the campus events" he describes.

Today’s post is the first of a two-post series. The second will appear tomorrow. Johnson posts here, usually just after midnight.

Most of Johnson's post is a day-by-day account with probing commentary concerning what key Duke administrators knew, did and didn’t do beginning on March 16, when police first searched the house, and the three Lacrosse captains living there provided them with extraordinary cooperation, including signed statements and voluntary submission to DNA testing.

Johnson's day-by-day account takes readers up to March 26, one day after the Raleigh News & Observer published it's grossly biased, inflammatory and now thoroughly discredited “anonymous interview” story.

Johnson reports new information concerning events and individuals, including a March 25 meeting attended by some Duke administrators and a large group of lacrosse parents. We also learn more about Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek's role in “arranging” for at least some players to be represented by an attorney of her choosing. What she did seems very questionable.

I hope Wasiolek speaks publicly concerning what Johnson reports. The parents of current Duke students should have been informed months ago of just what it was she did concerning the players. The parents of future Duke students and the public that’s followed the Hoax Case will also be interested to know what Wasiolek did.

For me, the post’s “biggest bombshell” was the report that at least some Duke administrators told some of the players not to tell their parents what was going on.

I hope when I finish this post and go to Duke University’s website there’s already a news release there at least responding to Johnson’s “don’t tell parents” report. If not, I plan to contact Duke News and ask for a statement.

Some of what Johnson’s sources provided is “old news.” For example, President Brodhead refused on March 25 to meet with the players’ parents. But that news still shocks.

What’s more, it raises a very important question Brodhead and the PR people Duke’s retained to “help us get past this” won’t answer: Just why did Brodhead refuse to meet with the parents?

While Johnson's is a “can’t stop reading” post, it’s also almost physically painful to learn that top Duke administrators – President Brodhead, Executive Vice president Tallman Trask III, Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek, Athletic Director Joe Alleva, and others - initially recognized the hoax for what it was, but nevertheless, over the course of many days and for reasons they’ve never explained, frequently acted in ways that at the least enabled the witch hunt and its monumental injustices.

Based on the information Johnson’s sources have provided, it’s even reasonable to ask whether Brodhead’s and other administrators’ actions didn’t, in fact, help make the witch hunt and its injustices inevitable.

Brodhead now tells everyone they shouldn't look back at events at Duke last March and thereafter. He wants us all to “look to the future.”

Johnson’s post makes it easy to understand why Brodhead doesn’t want us looking back. It also helps us understand why Duke’s trustees, top administrators and alumni association officers and directors are so reluctant to talk about what the University did and didn't do in response to the Hoax.

The events that have flowed from the initial false witness have rightly been described as a tragedy for the forty-six victimized students and their families.

Brodhead acknowledges there's been a tragedy at Duke. He’s even assigned himself a role: the well-intentioned but befuddled ditherer new to tragedy and all its complexities.

But Johnson doesn’t let Brodhead walk away with that role.

In the tragedy Johnson describes Brodhead is Cassius, the students and their families are the assassinated Caesar, and the rest of “the Brodhead team” are the other senators,not one of whom evidences any of Brutus’ redeeming qualities.

Back on September 9 I put up a post that included the following:

Brodhead likes to tell alumni groups and others he's been "very fair" to the lacrosse players.

Really?

How was Brodhead's withholding important information concerning the players’ cooperation fair to them?

How was it fair to any of us seeking to learn as much truth as possible about the situation?

How was it fair to Duke University or the community?

Whose interests were served by Brodhead's and his top administrators' withholding of that information from the public on Mar. 25?

Johnson’s post revives those questions. More importantly, it takes us closer to the answers.

Advice to Duke: Duck, cover and silence isn’t going to get you “past this.” Start answering the questions. Begin making things as right as you can.

Endorse Professor Coleman’s proposal that Nifong step aside and let a special prosecutor take over the case. Condemn the racists who threatened Reade Seligmann on May 18. Apologize to Seligmann and his family for not doing that when he was first threatened.

There’s much more you need to do but those actions will be important initial steps. They’ll be welcomed by people who love Duke and value fairness.

Words to KC Johnson: You’ve rendered another extraordinary service to those falsely accused; to those who seek as much justice as it’s possible to obtain now; and to those who want Duke to get “past this” with the openness, truth and courage that befit a great university.

Final word to readers: You're right. I plan to post tomorrow on Johnson's second post. I can't wait to read it.

John

The Churchill Series – Nov. 28, 2006

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

In recognition of Churchill’s birthday on November 30, I’m beginning today the three-post series I discussed in yesterday's post.

Before reaching age six a child typically accomplishes some extraordinary things: walking, running, balancing, climbing and learning to speak, even perhaps to begin reading, a language. Those accomplishments mostly speak to the child’s physical and intellectual capacities. They don’t necessarily tell us a lot about the child’s character or his or her empathy for others. To learn something of them, we need to look at how the child responds to life's events and treats other people.

In Churchill’s case we know that he was born into a wealthy and privileged family. His parents, talented and ambitious, largely ignored their baby and child. His care was turned over to a nurse, Mrs. Everest. With her he formed a bond of love that lasted throughout their lives. He would care for Everest in her last illness and keep her picture in his bedroom until he died.

When Churchill was age 5 his brother John, always “Jack” in the family, was born. “I remember my father coming into my bedroom (and) telling me, ‘You have a little brother,” he recalled sixty-five years later. As with Winston, the Churchill’s placed Jack in Everest’s care.

The birth of a sibling is a formidable, often threatening event. We’ve all seen children age 5 or so react by reverting to baby talk, thumb-sucking and the like. Sibling rivalry can be intensely competitive, brutally aggressive, and often last a lifetime.

We all could have understood if Churchill had reacted to Jack that way. But he didn’t. Everything we know about the boys early years indicates that, with the exception of occasional, transient squabbles, Winston was an affectionate and protective older brother who joined with Everest in caring for Jack. The brothers were close and mutually supportive throughout their lives. They married within a few months of each other, and the two Churchill couples became “best friends.”

Jack's birth presented young Winston with a great challenge to which he responded magnificently.

The child is father to the man.
____________________________________________________________
Sources will be provided later today.

"Mike, the Knife"

Yesterday I posted concerning a Cash Michaels' column in which he mentioned "DA Mike Knifing." I've emailed Michaels to find out whether "Knifing" was a typo or what.

Meantime, an anonymous reader composed this wonderful takeoff on the song from Three Penny Opera. You all know it. Hum along as you read it.

Hey man, there goes Mike the Knife!

Oh, the shark, has pretty teeth, dear
and he shows them pearly white
Just a jackknife has MikeNifong, dear
and he keeps it, out of sight
When that shark bites with his teeth, dear
scarlet billows start to spread.
Fancy gloves though wears MikeNifong, dear
so there's not a trace of red.

On the sidewalk,
Sunday morning,
lies a body oozin' life.
Someone's sneakin' 'round the corner,
is that someone Mike the Knife?

From a tugboat
by the river
a cement bag's droopin' down
Yeah, the cement's just for the weight, dear
bet you MikeNifong's back in town.

Lookie here, Ole Lady Justice disappeared, dear
after withdrawing all her cash.
And MikeNifong spends like a sailor.
Did our boy
do somethin' rash?

Judge Bushfan, Judge Stevens
Judge Titus, Judge Smith
Oh, the line forms on the right, dear
now that Mikey's back in town.


Anonymous added: I am no Joan Foster. So if anyone would like to improve on this, feel free to do so.

Imporve it? I think it's wonderful as it.

Thanks, Anonymous.

MSM ignores Edwards’ latest stumble

Yesterday I posted concerning the Manchester Union Leader’s report former Senator John Edwards would hold a book signing that night at a local Barnes & Noble that pays its employees a starting wage of $7 an hour.

Just behind the B&N is a Wal-Mart that also sells books and pays it workers a starting wage of $7.50 an hour.

Edwards has frequently criticized Wal-Mart for is employee wage scale. He’s encouraged people not to shop at Wal-Mart.

So why was Edwards holding a book signing at a B&N that pays its workers a lower starting wage than a nearby Wal-Mart, the Union Leader asked?

I asked two other questions:

Are people who know Edwards really surprised to learn he's holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble?

And don't you think most of those people are already asking themselves: "I wonder who John will blame for this one?"

Today, Edwards gave us his answer to my second question. It included a major stumble MSM are ignoring. From an AP report:

"I've never asked anyone not to shop at Wal-Mart," he said. "I understand people need to buy inexpensive goods... But there are other companies, like Costco, who can do it and pay a decent wage and provide health care coverage, and I don't think that responsibility should be passed to taxpayers."

So Edwards effectly blames Wal-Mart. OK, nothing new there.

But to justify blaming Wal-Mart, Edwards cites “companies like Costco” which he says “pay a decent wage and provide health care coverage, and I don’t think that responsibility should be passed to taxpayers.” (bold added)

Did Edwards mean to say the government shouldn’t provide health care coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, with the cost of that coverage “passed to taxpayers?”

Does Edwards think there’s any way the government can provide health care coverage to the uninsured without the cost of that coverage “passed to taxpayers?”

MSM should be asking those questions but so far news organizations appear to be giving Edwards a pass.

Just completed searches of network news sites and news.google.com come up “empty” regarding any MSM follow-up on Edwards' extraordinary stumble.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 27, 2006

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

It's some "this and that" today.

First, thank you to the two readers who responded to the question of what it is that Churchill is holding in his left hand in this photo of him and Clementine leaving St. Paul's Cathedral after a V-E Thanksgiving Service. Both responses were informed but I'm still not sure what he's holding.

One of Churchill's many "isms" was that, with certain notable exceptions, he liked, if at all possible, to keep his hands free. He was reluctant to carry even small, light objects. When, for example, walking to a spot where he would paint, he'd typically ask friends and aides to carry his brushes, paints and canvases.

The most notable exception to Churchill's "hands free" ism I can think of is his frequent use over many decades of a walking stick.

In recognition of Churchill's birthday November 30, tomorrow I'll begin a three-part post series which I hope will provide you some different from the well-deserved, but very familiar, birthday appreciations we usually read.

Two posts will concern his private life: his relationship with his younger brother, Jack, and his treatment during the 30s of a gypsy couple who first occupied land near Chartwell and then, at his invitation, moved onto Chartwell property.

The third post will concern his critical role after WWI in preserving the RAF as a separate service in the face of Army and Navy demands for its abolition and the distributing of its functions to them. In helping preserve the RAF as a seperate service, Churchill made an incredibly important contribution to the development of British air power which was just strong enough in 1940 to win the Battle of Britain.

John