Former DPD Sgt Says Top Cops Involved

Readers Note: Yesterday’s Durham Herald Sun contained a letter by a former DPD officer. If you’re already read it, you can skip the letter and go past the double starline to where my comments begin.

John
_______________________________________________________

DPD NEEDS CHANGE

To the editor:

City Manager Patrick Baker realized the need for change within the Durham Police Department. Hiring Jose Lopez to lead the Police Department was the right move. He is in a strong position to make overdue command staff changes and Baker should remind him of this opportunity often.

The circumstances of the Duke lacrosse fallout and other ill-advised departmental decisions reinforce the need for change.

Durham officers long for more changes, especially the patrol officers. These men and women are most affected when command decisions are based on emotional and personal convictions rather than hard, extant evidence of solid police practices.

Operation Bull's Eye is one example of wasted taxpayer money. My fear is that it is a direct attempt to overshadow the Duke lacrosse investigation and to counter positive activities recently initiated by the Sheriff's Office in North-East Central Durham. The last few shootings and murders in Durham have not been in the target area of Operation Bull's Eye.

The Whichard committee is currently investigating the Police Department. Some leaders of the department may be held accountable. The trail leading to ineptness will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department. (emphasis mine)

When the end of the trail is reached, it will be interesting to see if the new chief and the City Council really believe change is needed.

Jerry Grugin
Durham

The writer is a former Durham Police Department sergeant.

*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************

Folks,

As you read the rest of my commentary keep two things in mind:

1) On April 11, 2007 the NC Attorney General said with regard to the Duke lacrosse case: “the State had no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.”

2) On July 26, 2007 former Durham DA Mike Nifong speaking at a court hearing concerning criminal contempt charges filed against him said: "I agree with the attorney general’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any of the crimes for which they were indicted or any other crimes during the party that occurred on March 13 and 14 of 2006 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd."

In his letter Sgt. Grugin says, “The trail leading to ineptness will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department.”

I don’t think ineptness is the best word for what Sgt. Grugin is talking about. But he sure is right when he says the trail “will most certainly reach the highest levels of the department.”

Recall that DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge was in day-to-day charge of the department during most of the “investigation.”

In this post I provided a link to an April 12, 2006 MSNBC story which included this from Hodge:

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC ).

Nine months later in January 2007 when Nifong stepped aside and turned the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office, Hodge assured the Raleigh News & Observer DPD had collected evidence and that the case would go forward. I posted on the story here. The post contains a link to the N&O story which included:

Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred.

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

Why did Hodge say last April DPD had a strong case when, as we now know, it never had any credible evidence? Hodge must have known that then.

Why did Hodge claim in January that DPD had collected evidence which would enable a prosecutor to go forward with the case when, as the Attorney General said just three months later, there was no credible evidence any crime had been committed?

What was Hodge doing?

What kind of police officer and administrator is Deputy Chief Ron Hodge?

The Whichard Committee has some very important work to do.

Thanks go to Sgt. Grugin for reminding us that what's happened in DPD during the Duke lacrosse frame-up and the on-going cover-up isn’t a matter of a few officers in the lower ranks doing things they shouldn’t have done. The top cops knew what was going on.

And they could have stopped it.

A good opening question for the Whichard Committtee to ask Hodge is: "Will you please, Chief Hodge, tell us a little about your professional background and work with DPD?

That should be followed with: “Now tell us about this evidence of a strong case you say DPD collected?”

The Churchill Series – Aug. 22, 2007

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

This is the second in a five-part series intended to refute assertions by some historians that Churchill was insensitive to the problems and accomplishments of ordinary people, particularly ones who worked for him.

In the first post historian Maurice Ashley, who as a young academic worked for Churchill and remained a friend thereafter, set out the case “for the prosecution.” Ashley did it as a “professional duty.” He never himself agreed with “the prosecution.”

Today I begin “the case for defense” with the following from Grolier Online (scroll down) :

As Liberal M. P. for Northwest Manchester and for Dundee, he was in a position [during the first decade of the 20th century] to share in the long Liberal run of power and to take his place in one of the ablest British governments in modern times. As undersecretary of state for the colonies he played a considerable part in making a generous peace with the Boers.

As president of the board of trade (1908-1910) and home secretary (1910-1911), he contributed largely to the early legislation of the welfare state. He helped to create labor exchanges, to introduce health and unemployment insurance, to prescribe minimum wages in certain industries, and to limit working hours.

And this from Spartacus (scroll down):

Following the 1910 General Election Churchill became Home Secretary. Churchill introduced several reforms to the prison system, including the provision of lecturers and concerts for prisoners and the setting up of special after-care associations to help convicts after they had served their sentence.

Among the many social reforms Churchill helped put in place the one I believe he was most proud of was the program of old age pensions.

For this post I wanted to find in My Early Life (Touchstone, 1996) the passages in which he speaks about the salutary effect old age pensions have had on the lives of millions. But the book doesn't have an index and I couldn't find the passages. I'll try for tomorrow.

Tomorrow we’ll look at the life of the person I believe first taught Churchill about the lives of ordinary people: his nanny and surrogate mother, Ms. Elizabeth Ann Edwards.

Stossel on U.S. Health-Care Rankings

The always well-informed John Stossel at RealClearPolitics.com:

The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.

They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.

In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."

The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion.

So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.

But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.

First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference.

Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.

Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care?

The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.

So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.

Folks, what you’re about to read illustrates the difference between those rare journalists like Stossel who “dig” and “read the documents” and most MSM reporters who simply base their stories on “the handouts.”

The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy.

But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations.

What has that got to do with the quality of health care?

For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed."

The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

The rest of Stossel’s column is here.

It’s a pity more MSM reporters aren’t as smart and hard-working as Stossel. With more information and better analysis of health-care statistics, Americans could lead healthier lives.

You Gave to the Raleigh N&O

If you read the liberal/leftist Raleigh News & Observers editorial page, you know the N&O speaks out against takes breaks for big corporations like IBM, and Wal-Mart.

The N&O says “average citizens” have to pick up the costs of the tax benefits that “high paid lobbyists” and “big campaign contributors” influence Congress to grant big businesses.

True enough.

Now with that in mind and remembering the N&O is owned by The McClatchy Company, please read the following from the latest issue of the American Journalism Review and then answer a few questions that follow.

From the AJR [excerpt]:

The [Minneapolis] Star Tribune was for generations the pride and joy of the Cowles family, who continue to exert an enormous influence on the economy and the culture of the region. Given what was to follow, the warm nostalgia for the Cowles era is understandable.

The family sold Cowles Media Co., including the Star Tribune, for $1.2 billion to McClatchy in 1998. If the newspaper had to be sold to a chain, the common wisdom went, you couldn't do much better than McClatchy, with its reputation for putting the newsroom first.

The romance lasted eight years. Gary Pruitt, McClatchy's chairman and CEO, stunned Star Tribune employees the day after Christmas last year by announcing the paper was being sold to a private equity firm in New York, Avista Capital Partners. The billion-dollar company was now a $530 million property. Pruitt explained that McClatchy got a great tax break by selling.

Shortly before the sale was announced, Anders Gyllenhaal, editor of the Star Tribune for almost five years, told his staff he would be leaving in early March to take over as editor of McClatchy's Miami Herald.

A few weeks before Gyllenhaal left, Star Tribune Publisher J. Keith Moyer announced that Nancy Barnes would replace him. Barnes had been a protégé of Gyllenhaal's when he was editor of Raleigh's News & Observer, also a McClatchy paper. Gyllenhaal had lured Barnes to Minneapolis to serve as assistant managing editor for business in 2003, and by 2005 she had become a deputy managing editor.

Estimates of the tax breaks McClatchy will receive are mostly in the $300 million range with one as low as $160 million.

Questions:

Can you recall the last time the N&O or any newspaper you’ve read mentioned in an editorial that it was a beneficiary of “big business tax breaks?”

Have you read a newspaper editorial even once in your life attacking “big businesses use of high paid lobbyists to gain favors” that added: “And then there are newspapers such as this one whose ability to influence news reporting and make political endorsements is not lost on Congress when it goes to dole out tax favors?”

If you’re an “average citizen,” did you know you’d just been helping the McClatchy Company with its tax bill?

I didn’t read anything about it in the N&O. What about you?

You can read the entire AJR article here.

Democracy & Journalists

Rem Rieder, editor and senior vice president of American Journalism Review, is worried about the decline in newspaper readership and the consequent decline in what he calls “large armies of [MSM] reporters.”

In Sunday’s Raleigh News & Observer Rieder tells us why he thinks we should worry too:

Here's why: democracy.

An informed electorate is critical to democracy. And providing that information properly is expensive. It requires a lot of reporting firepower. And large reporting staffs tend to be fielded by newspapers.

I decided to send Rieder the following electronic letter.
____________________________________________________________

Rem Rieder, Editor and Senior Vice President
American Journalism Review

Dear Editor Rieder:

I blog at John in Carolina where I report and comment concerning MSM news organizations, particularly the Raleigh News & Observer.

I read your opinion column in Sunday’s Raleigh N&O. I’ve also listened to an audio tape of the May 22 National Press Club’s Duke lacrosse newsmakers forum at which you served as a panelist.

In your N&O column you noted the vital link between journalists and democracy.

I agree. Honest and accurate news reporting enables democracy as surely as dishonest and inaccurate reporting destroys it.

With that in mind, I’d like to ask you some questions concerning your response and the audience’s response to statements N&O investigative reporter Joseph (Joe) Neff made when he served with you as a panelist at the press club forum. I transcribed Neff’s statements in question from an audio purchased from the club. (Purchase information is in this post.)

Neff said:

“One of the things that I think really helped our paper throughout this story is we have a really strict policy against the use of anonymous sources and we did not use a single anonymous source or unnamed source in our – uh – I think as of now we’ve written 541 articles by – with at least 19 different bylines on it and what that (Neff pauses)

It was really frustrating in the initial couple of weeks when it was so competitive and no other newspaper and no other radio or TV station felt compelled to – they were going with 'sources close to the prosecution' or 'we have learned' or 'Nightline has found out' and they would just put stuff out there.

Now some of it we knew because we were told off the record, but we won’t use it, but some of it was absolute nonsense –ah – ah – so it allowed us to get beat on some very small things, but in general by not using anonymous sources, we were really saved – ah – from putting some –ah- some bad stuff in the paper.” (Moderator moves to another matter)

Could there have been more than one or two journalists at the forum who didn’t know the N&O story which launched witch hunt and media frenzy, Dancer gives details of ordeal , was based on an anonymous source interview?


The N&O’s Duke lacrosse reporting relied on so many anonymous and/or unnamed sources ( Is there a difference?) that three weeks after the “Dancer … ordeal” story appeared, the N&O published a story, Mother, dancer, accuser , identifying its sources as “former classmates and neighbors, friends and family members.”

The N&O even published on April 2, 2006 a photo of a “Vigilante” poster which it obtained from an anonymous source.

I felt sure you’d call Neff’s statements to his attention and invite him to correct or clarify them.

But you said nothing?

Why not?

The current issue of the American Journalism Review contains your managing editor, Rachel Smolkin’s, 8,000 word critique of media coverage of the Duke lacrosse case. It includes the following:

[N&O executive editor for news Melanie] Sill's reporters also watched in frustration as national media vied for their sources. "It was a messy story, and the outside media coverage, especially the cable television shows, the presence of every national media outlet here, made it much harder to report," she says. "People we would normally just go interview were having press conferences, or wouldn't talk, or would only talk in a leaking situation." But top editors told the staff that quoting unnamed sources was unacceptable.

Why, Editor Rieder, did AJR tell its readers “top [N&O] editors told the staff that quoting unnamed sources was unacceptable” without also telling them the N&O repeatedly used such sources?

Will you issue a prominent correction?

Press club staffers told me there was “very good attendance” at the forum and that almost everyone there had press credentials.

Yet during the Q&A no one asked Neff about his statements, which just about everyone had to know were false.

I’d have thought the last place someone could make a series of false statements and not be called on them was the National Press Club.

Am I naïve?

Lest you tell me to contact Neff and ask him to correct or clarify, I’ve done that repeatedly (See here, here and here ). He's responded by saying I’d have to disclose who I am before he’d even talk to me.

Thank you for your attention to this letter. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
www.johnincarolina.com
________________________________________________________

Folks,

I'll keep you posted as to what I hear back from Rieder.

John

The Churchill Series - Aug. 21, 2007

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

Today begins a five-part series intended to refute assertions by some historians that Churchill was insensitive to the problems and accomplishments of ordinary people, particularly ones who worked for him.

In this first post historian Maurice Ashley, who as a young academic just beginning his career worked for Churchill during the 30s and remained a friend for life sets out the case (scroll down)others have made for Churchill as insensitive to ordinary people:

Clementine Churchill once remarked to Lord Moran about her husband: "You probably don't realize, Charles, that he knows nothing of the life of ordinary people. He's never been in a bus and only once on the underground."

Taking this as their text, some commentators on Churchill have suggested that he was indifferent to the lot of ordinary people, even those who worked for him. A.J.P. Taylor has written that he was an "atrocious" employer.

A reviewer of William Manchester's book, The Lion Caged, deduced that he treated his research assistants and secretaries badly and underpaid them.

That was certainly not my own experience nor my own impression. He paid me £300 a year on a half-time basis and later raised my salary to £400 a year. When I was with him I applied for a lectureship in history at Reading University: the pay offered was £250 a year and there were a hundred applicants for the post. Later when I joined the Manchester Guardian as a lead-writer I was paid £5 a week.

He always treated me with the utmost consideration, almost as an equal. […]

His secretaries, when I was with him, adored him. They knew he was temperamental and could be annoying, but they recognized that he valued their work and could show consideration. Violet Pearman, then his chief secretary, was devoted to him. When she was taken ill he gave her work to do at home and he gave her daughter money after she died.

Other secretaries received paintings, which they were able to sell at a high price, which gave them comfort when they retired. When I was with him his chauffeur had a wife who was dying of tuberculosis; so Churchill never expected him to work in the evenings.

My own impression is that Churchill was perfectly well aware of the difficulties of ordinary people.

Tomorrow’s post will include details of some legislation Churchill fought for and helped put in place a century ago that had an enormously beneficial effect on the lives of ordinary people than and ever since.

BTW – I respect Ashley but I’m skeptical of most statements about Churchill that come to us via Lord Moran. Can any of you find a source for the Clementine Churchill quote other than Moran? Did she ever confirm it?

The Churchill Series - Aug. 20, 2007

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

In August, 1989 Sir Maurice Ashley addressed the international conference of the Churchill Society's meeting in London. By then a distinguished historian and Churchill biographer, Ashley looked back sixty years to his first meeting with Churchill, at which began a working relationship and friendship that lasted for thirty-five years until Churchill’s death in 1965:

I was twenty-two years old at the time. I had just taken a first-class degree in modern history and won several prizes and was anxious to become financially independent of my parents.

I had managed to obtain two or three research grants, but they were not enough to live on.

During the summer I received a letter from Keith Feiling, who was a Student, that is to say Fellow of Christ Church, telling me that Winston Churchill was looking for a part-time research assistant for a book he was planning to write about his ancestor, the first Duke of Marlborough.

I was then a keen young socialist and had been both secretary and chairman of the Oxford University Labour Club.

The name of Churchill was an anathema to me because we young socialists believed that Churchill was chiefly responsible for crushing the General Strike of 1926, called on behalf of the coal miners.

As a matter of fact, as we now know, Churchill was sympathetic to the claims of the miners, who were then paid a pitiful wage, and he did not care for the coal-owners. He would have liked minimum wages to be guaranteed to the miners and a limitation imposed on the profits of the owners, but he was overruled by the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin.

At any rate, after thinking the matter over, I changed my mind: after all Churchill was a famous man - and I needed some money.

I was invited to meet Churchill at a luncheon in the rooms of Professor Lindemann, later Lord Cherwell, a close friend of Churchill. There was no interview. Churchill sat by me on a sofa and said: "I hear you are going to work for me." Lindemann asked Churchill if he would like Champagne for his lunch. Churchill replied, "I always have beer for lunch."

Soon I was invited to stay at Chartwell, Churchill's country home. It was a revelation for me as a middle-class youth to move into this semi-aristocratic atmosphere. Churchill said to me: "I always dress for dinner." This was not strictly true - he certainly did not do so when he was in Africa. However, there it was. A valet laid out my clothes.

Before dinner we had sherry, then Champagne, brandy and port. During the night I was violently sick.

On the following evening at dinner I refused the port. "Ah!," said Churchill, "I have some excellent Madeira." Afterwards, whenever I dined at Chartwell, Churchill would say: "Ashley likes Madeira."

I’ll just leave Ashley’s recollections stand without comment.

You can read his entire address here, courtesy of the Churchill Center.

JinC’s Undeserved "Rewards"

JinC Regulars know that last week I posted Brodhead Silent on Boycott Proposal (Error Alert) which included a quote from and link to an NRO post stating Duke’s President, Richard Brodhead, hadn’t spoken out in opposition to a proposed boycott of Israeli universities by a union of British college and university lecturers.

A JinC Regular, Duke Prof Michael Gustafson, quickly reported the NRO post and the part of mine which used it were wrong.

Sure enough, that was the case. You can read Brodhead’s excellent statement opposing the boycott here.

I immediately did what any good blogger would do: I corrected my mistake.

I put an ERROR ALERT, correction and apology to Brodhead and JinC readers at the head of the post.

Because of the seriousness of misstating a university president’s position on so important a matter, and because NRO has an international reach, I also put up a separate post calling attention to the error and providing links so anyone could fact-check: Brodhead Opposes Proposed Boycott.

I was sorry for my mistake but I’d done what I could to correct it, so I went on to a four hour meeting.

I got back home about 7 PM and checked email, JinC and my number counts.

That’s when I learned I was getting “rewards” I didn’t deserve.

There were comments both off- and online praising me for my “integrity” and “having what it takes to admit a mistake unlike the Group of 88.”

Folks, I appreciated those comments but they weren’t deserved.

A big part of my correcting was self-interest. Most of you wouldn’t come here if you knew I wouldn’t quickly acknowledge and correct errors concerning facts.

As for my somehow being better than Group of 88’ers, let’s all remember this: I didn’t mean to post in error concerning Brodhead, so it was easy for me to say I was wrong.

Almost all Duke's 88 were and remain deeply invested in the falsehoods in their “listening statements.” They are still grateful to the people they thanked for “not waiting.” They sincerely believe Duke is the disgustingly racist and sexist place they described in their statement.

Those 88'ers are much like people who sincerely and deeply believe a certain racial or national group is inferior to other groups.

So how can 88'ers admit their errors, much less apologize for them, when they don’t know they’re wrong?

Getting back to ol’ JinC, I did appreciate those nice words even if they were undeserved.

Now something else I didn’t deserve: I got what many bloggers call their “favorite dream:” a link from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.

Reynolds had posted on the NRO post and somehow he picked on my second post. He used it to call his readers attention to the NRO error.

As a result, I got thousands of visitors.

But there was more. Many other bloggers linked to the correction and praised me.

Again, all underserved.

Closing comments –

I appreciate all the JinC “editors” who point out my errors. I plan a major post citing the “editors” work to knock the false claim that many in MSM make about blogs being unedited and, therefore, untrustworthy.

I’ve made three contacts with NRO to get them to correct. I’ve heard nothing back despite one of the contacts being a phone conversation with a staff member. The last time I looked, NRO hadn’t made a correction.

Special thanks to another JinC Regular, AMac, who put me on to NRO's failure to correct.

I don't know why NRO wouldn't quickly correct and apologize. Who do they think they are: The Raleigh N&O or the NT Times?

Goodbye, Cindy. Hello, Elvira

Liberal and leftist interest groups put on shows much the way Broadway producers do. They write scripts, pick leads, and work on scenes.

Like their Broadway counterparts, they want their shows to draw huge audiences.

To get people “to come to the show,” liberal/leftists count on gobs of free publicity and sympathetic reviews from their MSM friends.

In the past few years the liberal/leftists’ most popular shows have been Cindy Sheehan, Peace Activist and Mike Nifong, Durham Prosecutor.

But neither show “sells” anymore.

A Cindy Sheehan production now rarely draws more than a few dozen; and that’s after a big MSM press buildup. When she appears on liberal talk radio network NPR, she draws about as well as Gerhard Schroeder.

And Mike Nifong, Durham Prosecutor?

That was an improvisational production. Liberals and leftists liked the opening scenes but when people started walking on stage saying, “They're innocent,” and, “Did you hear Nifong was disbarred?”, liberals and leftist began leaving.

They were saying things like: “Pot banging is more fun; and it makes us feel more righteous, too.”

So liberal/leftists need to roll out a new production. And they did that this weekend.

It’s a show about a poor, heroic, illegal immigrant mother, Elvira Arellano, who’s heartlessly separated from her young child as she’s reaching out to help others whose families are being torn apart by an organization liberal/leftist producers often cast as an evil doer: The United States Government.

One of those helping with this latest production is the Associated Press. Its summary of the opening scenes from act one is below.

I can’t tell from just the opening scenes if the show will be as big a “hit” as Cindy Sheehan, Peace Activist was for a few years or if it will “tank” as Mike Nifong, Durham Prosecutor did after months of very favorable MSM coverage designed to prop it up.

What do you think?
_____________________________________

From the AP: Immigration Activist Deported to Mexico


An illegal immigrant who took refuge in a Chicago church for a year to avoid being separated from her U.S.-born son has been deported to Mexico, the church's pastor said.

Elvira Arellano became an activist and a national symbol for illegal immigrant parents as she defied her deportation order and spoke out from her religious sanctuary. She held a news conference last week to announce that she would finally leave the church to try to lobby U.S. lawmakers for change.

She had just spoken at rally Los Angeles rally when she was arrested Sunday outside Our Lady Queen of Angels church and deported, said the Rev. Walter Coleman, pastor of Adalberto United Methodist Church in Chicago, where Arellano had been living.

"She has been deported. She is free and in Tijuana," said Coleman, who said he spoke to her on the phone. "She is in good spirits. She is ready to continue the struggle against the separation of families from the other side of the border."

Her 8-year-old son, Saul, is now living with Coleman's family. During a news conference in Los Angeles after Arellano's arrest, the boy hid behind the pastor's wife and wiped away tears.

Arellano had said on Saturday that she was not afraid of being taken into custody by immigration agents.

"From the time I took sanctuary, the possibility has existed that they arrest me in the place and time they want," she said in Spanish. "I only have two choices. I either go to my country, Mexico, or stay and keep fighting. I decided to stay and fight."

Arellano, 32, arrived in Washington state illegally in 1997. She was deported to Mexico shortly afterward, but returned and moved to Illinois in 2000, taking a job cleaning planes at O'Hare International Airport.

She was arrested in 2002 at O'Hare and convicted of working under a false Social Security number. She was to surrender to authorities last August but instead sought refuge at the church on Aug. 15, 2006.

She had not left the church property until she decided to travel by car to Los Angeles, Coleman said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement confirmed her Sunday arrest. Spokeswoman Gail Montenegro said the agency would have further details on the deportation later Monday.

Arellano is staying with a friend in Tijuana, Coleman said. He said she had brought to light her struggle, and for that, "she has won a victory."

"She'll be organizing on the Mexican side of the border while we're organizing in the (United) States," Coleman said Monday. "She'll be talking to organizations throughout Mexico and congressmen in Mexico City."

Coleman said he and other activists will continue Arellano's original plan to go to Washington, D.C., and take part in a prayer meeting and rally for immigration reform at the Capitol on Sept. 12.

Immigration activists promised protests and vigils to support Arellano.

"We are sad, but at the same time we are angry," said Javier Rodriguez, a Chicago immigration activist who worked with Arellano. "How dare they arrest this woman?"
Anti-illegal immigrant groups said the arrest was long overdue.

"Just because the woman has gone public and made an issue of the fact that she is defying law doesn't mean the government doesn't have to do its job," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors limits on immigration.

Arellano has repeatedly called for a stop to immigration raids that break up families with some members who are in the U.S. legally and others illegally. She has said her son would be deprived of his rights as a U.S. citizen if he had to go to Mexico simply because she did.

Emma Lozano, Coleman's wife and head of immigration rights group Centro Sin Fronteras in Chicago, said she was Saul's legal guardian.

"He's taking it better than we thought he would," Lozano said.

While being arrested, Arellano spoke briefly with her son before submitting to authorities, Lozano said.

"She calmed him down, hugged him and gave him a blessing," Lozano said.

Churchill, Chicks & Ice Cream

I was researching at the Churchill Center’s website and came upon this paragraph trumpeting the growth in interest in history, and in Churchill in particular:

Consider the success of the History Channel, burgeoning sales of history books (over twenty on Churchill in 2006-08), heritage site visitations, historical reenactments, or the in infinite number of educational websites. Enter "Winston Churchill" into Google and you get 2,750,000 hits--more than Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any other 20th century figure.

I have serious concerns Americans don’t know enough about history or have much interest in learning it. But I’ll leave that for another day.

That Google figure of 2,750,000 “Winston Churchill” hits the Center used caught my eye.

I Googled “Winston Churchill” at 2 PM Eastern on 8/19/07 and got 2,860,000 hits.

Given that Google hit return numbers can vary hour-by-hour, the Center’s “Winston Churchill” number was as right as can be.

But should Churchill’s Google numbers reassure us? Do they prove much in terms of a growing interest in him and history?

Here are the results of some more Googling I did at the same time.

“Dixie Chicks” returned 2,380,000 hits. “Barbra Streisand” returned 2,370,000.

They’re running Churchill a good race. I think he’s been hurt by not having a hit record in years. And, of course, he doesn’t do live concerts.

“Ice cream” yielded 35, 900,000 and “Ben and Jerry” 1,390,000.

Well, I reported and gave a few thoughts. What do you think?

AP’s Dem Fournier on Rove

When presidential aide Karl Rove’s resignation was announced, AP political reporter Ron Fournier wrote an “analysis” of Rove’s character and his work for President Bush.

Among other things Fournier, who’s Democratic partisanship and Bush-bashing help undermine the AP’s claim to political objectivity, had this to say about what he termed Rove’s “involve[ment]” in the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity to columnist Bob Novak [on pg. 3 of the "analysis" ]:

Rove's own word came into doubt when a White House spokesman, after checking with him, denied that the strategist was involved in the leak of a CIA agent's identity. Turned out, Rove was one of the leakers.

Not so fast, “analyst” and Democrat Ron Fournier.

Bob Novak, writing the same time as Fournier, repeated some things he’s said often and Fournier no doubt knew:

Although [Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald knew from the start that not Rove but the politically nondescript Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was my primary source in identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, the prosecutor came close to indicting Rove for perjury or obstruction of justice. Rove rivaled Bush as a hate figure for left-wing politics.

Fournier never told readers Armitage was the source of the Plame leak or that Fitzgerald knew that in the very first days of his “investigation.”

Nor did Fournier acknowledge that what Rove did was to simply confirm to TIME reporter Matt Cooper, husband of Democratic Party activist Mandy Grunwald, that he’d heard Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and had a role in the agency’s decision to send her husband Joe Wilson on a fact-finding trip to Niger.

Rove wasn’t leaking; he was confirming. That happens in Washington hundreds of times each day. Reporters use confirmations to get their stories "right." A good reporter is careful to let readers know when he/she is using a "leaker" and when the story "has been confirmed."

Fournier knows Rove was confirming, but he wouldn't pass on a chance to slime Rove even if it meant misleading his readers.

Closing thoughts - - -

Most of MSM, including the AP, keep telling us Plame was a “covert” CIA agent. But for more than five years before Novak disclosed her CIA employment, Plame drove to work from her Washington home to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA.

Request to the Democratic dominated MSM: Will you please investigate and report whether the CIA really lets its covert operatives commute to headquarters?

Wouldn’t that be strange and newsworthy even for an agency that bungles as much as the CIA?

Fournier's piece is here; Novak's is here.

Word ’03 says he’s Mike Knifing

Folks, when you spell check Mike Nifong using Microsoft Office Word 2003, are you told he’s really Mike Knifing?

That’s what I’m told.

Try these:

Mike Nifong assaulted America’s system of justice by trying to frame innocent people.

and

For their attacks on our justice system, Mike Nifong and Brian Meehan deserve jail.

Word says he’s Mike Knifing, doesn’t it?

How did Word know that 2003?

Jesse Jackson hurt America

Readers Note: This is a 1, 2 post.

1) A repost of Rev. Jesse Jackson steps into the Duke lacrosse spotlight. It was first posted on April 16, 2006, the day before a Durham grand jury indicted two innocent Duke students, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

2) Comments concerning statements by Jesse Jackson mentioned in the post and the failure of many at the time to speak out and counter them.

John
_____________________

1) Rev. Jesse Jackson steps into the Duke lacrosse spotlight - April 16, 2006

The Associated Press reports:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday his Rainbow/Push Coalition will pay the college tuition of a woman who told police she was raped by members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team while working as a stripper -- no matter the outcome of the case.

"I can't wait ... to talk with her and have prayer with her, because our organization is committed, when she's physically and emotionally able ... to provide for her the scholarship money to finish school so she will never ... again have to stoop that low to survive," he said from Chicago in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

When asked, the civil rights leader also said his group will pay for the woman's tuition even if her report proves false. …

So, you want a college scholarship? You got it. And you don’t even need to study hard and get good grades so long as you can make a false rape accusation.

All you parents, teachers, and guidance counselors: be sure to let high school students know how they can become eligible for a Rev. Jackson scholarship.

Jackson's really helping change America, isn't he?

The AP says nothing about what Jackson, regarded by some as a civil rights leader, plans to provide victims falsely accused by his scholarship winners.

Hat tip and trackback: Signifying Nothing.
Trackback: Gateway Pundit. Sister Toldjah.

____________________________________________________

2) JinC Comments:

Mike Nifong assaulted America’s system of justice by trying to frame innocent people. DNA expert Brian Meehan assaulted our justice system by agreeing to withhold evidence. Jesse Jackson assaulted it by announcing a false accusation of rape will get you a scholarship.

Nifong and Meehan meant to attack the justice system. With Jackson it was a case of indifference to the justice system. He’s a self-promoter who made the scholarship offer to get publicity.

He couldn’t make his offer conditional on Mangum’s telling the truth. If he did, Jackson knew the “victims’ rights” people would have screamed about “Reverend Jackson adding to the woman’s pain by suggesting that she’s not telling the truth.”

Jackson didn’t want that kind of publicity. He wanted the kind he got.

So the Reverend said he was willing to pay for false witness.

And who's surprised by that? After all, Jesse Jackson is Jesse Jackson.

For their attacks on our justice system, Nifong and Meehan deserve jail.

What about Jackson? What does he deserve for attacking the justice system by promising to hefty reward to a woman making a charge of rape, even a false one?

Just speaking for myself, I don’t think we can put a leader of the religious left and our country’s best known civil rights activist in jail for self-promotion, even if it does involve an odious act all Americans should condemn.

Condemn! That’s what should have happened when Jackson made his despicable “scholarship offer.”

It should have been condemned by law professors, bar associations, MSM editorialists, civil rights organization, activist clergy, his fellow Democrats and all Americans who care about justice.

It would have been especially fitting for African-Americans to remind Jackson that in the past terrible things happened to innocent black men as a result of encouraging white women to, regardless of the truth, cry “rape.”

But that didn’t happen, did it?

By and large, most blacks and whites in positions of leadership and influence said nothing publicly critical of Jackson’s “it’s not about the truth” offer.

That was a missed opportunity. He should have been called out for what he was doing.

Tomorrow I’ll post concerning how we can still take some actions to counter what Jackson did and perhaps discourage, or at least more fully expose, him the next time.

Highlighting H-S Editor Ashley (Post 1)

(This is the first of an occasional series highlighting Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley’s work.)

Bob ("Paxton Owner Man") Ashley edits the H-S on both the news and editorial sides.

The other day an Ashley editorial began:

The lesson of Karl Rove, who resigned his White House job this week, is that the qualities of an effective political strategist don't necessarily translate into effective governance.

The editorial went on to slam President Bush as well as Rove.

If you're a "hot, hot" Leftist, you had to love the editorial.

But if you're an American who puts country before party, you'll recognize Ashley's editorial is one more example of why under his editorship the H-S has declined in quality, circulation and ad revenue.

Below in italics are “highlights” of the editorial followed by my comments in plain.
_____________________________________

In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, Rove ran Bush as "a uniter not a divider," but sadly, it turned out to be an empty slogan. In the waning months of the Bush administration, the country is more divided than ever.

America “more divided than ever?”

Quick! Someone tell Ashley about the Civil War.

Then let him know about the bitterness of the Reconstruction era.

Remind him he lived through the 60s when there were riots in many American cities, including Chicago during the ’68 Democratic National Convention.

Someone who really was a uniter would have taken advantage of the post 9/11 spirit of unity, both domestic and international.

President Bush did seek to build on the post 9/11 spirit of unity.

But then look at some of what happened.

Senator Hillary Clinton rushed to the Senate floor waving a tabloid headlined: BUSH KNEW.

Then she held the tabloid up and steady while press photographers got their shots.

Mind you, Senator Clinton assured us, she wasn’t doing any of that because she thought Bush knew in advance about 9/11. She was only asking because her constituents wanted to know.

Michael Moore didn’t have any doubts BUSH KNEW. He made "Fahrenheit 9/11" to prove it.

Moore's "Bush knew" claim has as much substance as the claim of extremists of an earlier generation that President Roosevel knew of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and failed to act.

So what did the Democratic Party do in response to Moore and his docu-slime?

Well, first there was a high profile Fahrenheit 9/11 showing in Washington which many of the party's Congressional leades attended. They cheered and hugged Moore. Then they complained Bush was dividing America.

No kidding.

The Dems were so taken with Fahrenheit 9/11 they invited Moore to sit in their Honor Box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention with former President Jimmy Carter.

I’m sure many of you saw the scene on TV.

But with their misplaced focus on Iraq and their disdain for contrary opinions, Bush, Rove, Cheney and the rest missed the chance to create an FDR-like international coalition against Islamic extremism.

What "FDR-like international coalition" is Ashley talking about?

Our WW II allies?

FDR didn’t put that coalition together. The Axis did. It was Hitler who made Stalin and Churchill war allies. What's more, almost all of our WW II allies were in the fight before we joined it.

The post-war U. N.? Is that the "FDR-like international coalition" Ashley's talking about? FDR was a major contributor to its creation.

But the UN's failed to live up to its promise. It's riddled with corruption as the Oil for Food Program demonstrated. The people it benefits most are the relatives and friends of third world dictators who come to New York and live as millionaires.

This administration made other mistakes, but the war in Iraq is the raging elephant in the room.

At the time of the Korean War, President Truman’s decision to use military force was considered by most Americans to be a major mistake. Now it's considered one of his wisest and gutsiest actions.

We’ll see with Bush and Iraq. In the meantime, Ashley’s already made his judgement.

Who’s surprised?

You can't pin the missteps in Iraq solely on Rove, although Michael Isikoff, writing in Newsweek, said that Rove's "behind-the-scenes role in the selling and spinning of the war was far more significant than is commonly known."

Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff?

Isn’t he the one who reported the bogus “Quran down the toilet” story that was followed by riots, arsons and murders by mobs in many Muslim countries?

Yes, Isikoff’s the one.

Well, folks, that's enough for now.

I’ll be back again highlighting Editor Bob Ashley’s work.

The Churchill Series – Aug. 17, 2007

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

Even if you didn’t know what I’m about to say, as soon as you read it you’ll likely say something like, “Of course.”

Churchill loved to sing.

Many of his contemporaries recorded in diaries and letters times they came upon the Great Man unaware and singing. The staffs at Chartwell, Downing Street and Hyde Park Gate all knew “those sounds” meant “he’s in the tub now.”

He was a poor singer as far as melody went but his knowledge of lyrics was phenomenal.

Many historians describe his musical tastes as low-brow but I don’t agree. That’s likely because I have some of the same tastes. He loved music hall ballads, military marches and Gilbert & Sullivan operettas. So do I.

In H. M. S. Pinafore, G&S ridicule the process by which Britain selected it’s First Lords of the Admiralty. G&S's “First Lord,” Sir Joseph Porter, explained it all to the audience in “I Am The Monarch Of The Sea.”

Churchill, twice First Lord, loved the song.

I’ll end this post with Sir Joseph’s “explanation” of how he rose to “the top of the tree” to become “Ruler of the Queen’s Navee.”

SIR JOSEPH:

When I was a lad I served a term
As office boy to an Attorney's firm.
I cleaned the windows and I swept the floor,
And I polished up the handle of the big front door.
I polished up that handle so carefullee
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

As office boy I made such a mark
That they gave me the post of a junior clerk.
I served the writs with a smile so bland,
And I copied all the letters in a big round hand--
I copied all the letters in a hand so free,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip
That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween,
Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
But that kind of ship so suited me,
That now I am the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

I grew so rich that I was sent
By a pocket borough into Parliament.
I always voted at my party's call,
And I never thought of thinking for myself at all.
I thought so little, they rewarded me
By making me the Ruler of the Queen's Navee!

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,
If you want to rise to the top of the tree,
If your soul isn't fettered to an office stool,
Be careful to be guided by this golden rule--
Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee!

Folks, I hope you don’t have to spend too much time this weekend close to your desks.

John

Duke & Student Safety Questions

Readers Note: On May 17, as follow-up to a phone conversation, I sent Duke University’s Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John Burness a link to the post, Duke Silent on Student Safety Questions.

The post included a letter to Burness which began:

I’m having trouble obtaining information concerning actions Duke may have taken in the interest of student safety last spring when the “Vigilante” poster containing face photos of 43 white male students on the lacrosse team was produced and circulated on campus.

I want to report that information to my readers who include Duke students, parents, faculty, alums, and a few trustees as well as others. I also want to place it on the net where journalists and others can access it.

More than six weeks ago I sent electronic letters to Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta and Duke Police Director Robert Dean. The letters contained questions regarding specific actions each administrator and his staffs may or may not have taken last March and April in regard to the “Vigilante” poster.

I told both Vice President Moneta and Director Dean I would publish their answers in full on the main page of JinC.

I’ve never heard word one from either administrator, despite sending second copies of links to my letters and leaving phone messages for them.

The questions are important. They are ones members of the Duke community want answers to as soon as they become aware of the “Vigilante” poster, and its contribution to the targeting and endangerment of Duke students and others.[...]

I asked Burness to help obtain Moneta’s and Dean’s answers to the questions.

When I did not hear back from Burness, I sent him follow-up emails.

This week Burness sent an email containing answers to some but not all of my questions to Moneta and no answers to any of the questions I asked Dean.

The incompleteness of Burness' response should not be viewed as necessarily a reflection on him. He may just be having trouble getting answers.

Consider all the trouble many of us have had getting an answer to a question as simple as why Predident Brodhead said nothing when racists shouted threats, including death threats, at Reade Seligmann, an outstanding Duke student, athlete and person who subsequently transferred to Brown University.

What follows is first, the post GoDuke.com & “Vigilante” Questions , which contains my letter to Moneta. After that comes Burness’ email to me.

I don’t make any subsequent comment because I want you have a look at the documents without my jumping right in.

In a day or two I’ll comment.

I also plan to continue to pursue answers to the unanswered questions and ask others that are arising as we learn more about Duke’s actions and inactions following Crystal Mangum’s lies.

You, of course, are free to comment anytime you wish.
_________________________________________________________

GoDuke.com & "Vigilante" Questions April 3, 2007


CORRECTION: In my letter below to Duke University's Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta, I identify him has the highest ranking Duke administrator present at a March 25, 2006 meeting with the lacrosse parents. In fact, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask III was the senior administrator present.

I apologize for my error and thank John Burness, Vice President for Student Affairs and Government Relations, for calling it to my attention.

John
__________________________________________

Readers Note: For background to the letter below, see these posts and other posts to which they link:

"Duke's Silence on 'Vigilante' and 'Wanted' posters"

"Letter to DUPD Director Dean"

"To DUPD Director Dean - 3/28/07"

DUPD and "Vigilante" Questions

John
__________________________________

Larry Moneta, Ed.D.
Vice President for Students Affairs
Duke University

Dear Dr. Moneta:

I’m a Duke alum who blogs as John in Carolina. I’ve published often on aspects of the Hoax and frame-up, including the “Vigilante” poster.

Those who created and distributed the “Vigilante” poster perniciously targeted students who were members of Duke’s 2006 Men’s lacrosse team, as evidenced by the poster’s prominent display of the 43 face photos of lacrosse players which were pulled from GoDuke.com.

The “Vigilante” poster also placed at risk the safety of every other Duke student who might be an unintended victim of unstable individuals and hate groups incited by the poster and the praise its “activist” creator(s) and distributors received from many, including some in leadership positions at Duke.

I want to ask you questions relating to the poster. I’ll publish your answers in full at JinC and leave your answers there free of my commentary for at least a day so the alums, parents and students, Duke staffers, journalists, and others reading the blog can read your response free of my commentary.

It’s my understanding you were the senior Duke administrator present at the lax parents’ meeting on Saturday, March 25, 2006; and that a parent request was made that the University remove from GoDuke.com the face photos of all the lacrosse players.

Was such a parent request made? If it was, what did the University do in response?

If you or another administrator responded positively to the parent request, when were the photos removed from GoDuke.com?

As you know, it’s been reported that Duke only began to remove the students’ photos when it realized they were actually being pulled from GoDuke.com. A USA Today report puts the date as Monday, March 27.

Some months back sports information director Jon Jackson confirmed in a phone interview that, out of concern for the students’ safety, Duke did pull all the lacrosse players’ photos from GoDuke.com before the poster creator(s) got the last 4 players photos, but obviously not before the creator(s) had already gotten 43 photos.

Do you know when Duke removed the students’ photos? Or should I direct that question to someone in IT?

If the question should be asked of someone in IT, please direct me to that person.

Have you or anyone in student affairs or elsewhere at Duke sought to identify the individual(s) who pulled the students’ photos that wound up on the “Vigilante” poster?

If yes, what have you learned?

If not, why not?

There are other questions I want to ask concerning student affairs' response to the “Vigilante” poster’s circulation on campus but this letter is getting long.

I’ll hold those questions for another day.

The post title containing this letter is: GoDuke.com & “Vigilante” Questions.

I’m cc’ing to other University officers because I plan to contact them concerning aspects of the “Vigilante” poster.

Thank you for your attention to this letter.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Cc: Robert Steel, chair, board of trustees, DU
Richard Brodhead, president, DU
John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, DU
Aaron Graves, associate vice president for campus safety and security, DU
David Jarmul, associate vice president of news and communications
Robert Dean, director, DUPD

______________________________________________________________

VP John Burness' email to JinC Aug. 13, 2007

Hi John...sorry to be slow in getting back to you. I was able to get pretty easily the info you had requested of Larry Moneta and then once I got it, proceeded to forget about it til I saw your follow up note, so thanks for reminding me.Here's what I have learned from the folks in Athletics:

First, you should know that you are incorrect in your statement/assumption that Moneta was the highest ranking university administrator at the meeting with the parents on 25 March. That was Executive Vice President Tallman Trask III.

The next morning, 26 March,responding to the concerns expressed by parents at the meeting, Athletic Director Joe Alleva instructed that personal information of the lacrosse players be taken down from the GoDuke.com website and all photos and bio information were deactivated that morning.

The following morning, 27 March, just to play safe, any links to the former page also were deleted.

I hope this info is helpful.


John F. Burness
Senior Vice President for Public Affairs
and Government Relations
Duke University

The Churchill Series - Aug. 16, 2007

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

In the late 1980s Richard M. Langworth, historian and Executive Director of the U. S. branch of the International Churchill Societies, introduced Alistair Cooke at an ICS gathering.

Langworth's carefully researched, warm and admiring introduction highlighted Cooke’s more than fifty year career as a journalist, author, and erudite host of both Omnibus and Masterpiece Theater.

Langworth said that of all Cooke’s books, the one he most enjoyed is Six Men which profiles Charlie Chaplin, H. L. Mencken, Humphrey Bogart, Adlai Stevenson, Bertrand Russell and Edward VIII, each of whom Cooke knew well. Langworth then offered his listeners what he called his “last Cooke-ism:”

It is about King Edward that I offer my last Cooke- ism: the closing sentence of a portrait I think is unmatched, despite many excellent biographies, Edward VIII's own apologia and that of his wife. It is also the line invariably quoted to me: by anyone who has read Six Men.

"The most damning epitaph you can compose about Edward VIII," Mr. Cooke wrote, "as a Prince, as a King, as a man, is one that all comfortable people should cower from deserving: He was at his best only when the going was good." (Rather the opposite of a definition of Winston Churchill, which is perhaps why Churchillophiles remember it.)

You can access Langworth’s introduction here. Cooke’s speech, “Churchill At The Time: A Retrospective,” is here.

Rickards’ Letter: Duke’s Silent So Far

In response to a Durham Herald Sun story on fundraising at UNC –Chapel Hill and Duke for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007, Ed Rickards (Duke ’60, Duke Law ’63) wrote a letter the H-S published last Friday.

The H-S story reported:

Officials at Duke reported Thursday that giving to their school was up about 11 percent, pushing the overall total for the fiscal year that ended June 30 to $380.1 million.

Campus fundraisers credit the figure to the popularity of Duke's efforts to endow scholarships. […]

Rickards' letter reminded readers Duke’s President, Richard Brodhead, and his administration have a pressing need “to proclaim good news in order to survive their handling of the lacrosse debacle.”

Rickards went on to say some other very important things including:

• Exactly half of the increase over the previous year came from an installment payment by The Duke Endowment toward its one-time pledge of $75 million for scholarships. With this surge omitted, the increase did little more than cover inflation.

• The claim that more than 75 percent has been pledged is distorted by over-subscription in areas like athletic scholarships. The undisclosed secret: only half of the money for need-based undergraduate aid is in sight, which puts the big goal of the initiative in jeopardy.

• [Identifying] the $380 million as "philanthropic gifts" is seriously misleading; for example a large portion is for sponsored medical research, which is to say payment for work to be done.

I posted on Rickards’ letter here.

I’m a Duke alum who’s lived in and around Durham for 33 years. I read the letters section of the H-S. Typically, Duke responds promptly and fully to a H-S letter such as Rickards'.

But despite Rickards’ asking specific and reasonable questions which Duke has the information to answer, the University hasn't responded.

Why hasn’t Duke responded to Rickards’ questions?

The answer may be as simple as Duke needing a bit more time.

I’ll continue to watch the H-S letters section. I’ll post as soon as Duke responds to Rickards.

Meanwhile, the thread to my first post concerning Rickards’ letter is very informative. People obviously knowledgeable concerning fundraising, including Rickards, have been commenting.

It’s a great thread but it’s now very lengthy.

A long thread will often discourage or confound people just “joining the conversation.”

So I’m going to leave the following comment on the thread:

The commenters here are providing a very important service.

But with the thread now lengthy I want to invite you all to continue the conversation at this post:

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/08/rickards-letter-dukes-silent-so-far.html

You’re free to remain here but if you move to the new post, please consider including in your first comment a summary of what you said here.

Thank you all for commenting.

John

I’ll post again Sunday concerning Duke’s annual giving.

Below is the full text of Rickards’ letter. The H-S story is here.
__________________________________________________________

To the editor:

In a recent story, The Herald-Sun relied on a Duke University press release touting a record $380 million in gifts.

This total must be examined carefully in light of the pressing need of President Richard Brodhead and his administration to proclaim good news in order to survive their handling of the lacrosse debacle.

Exactly half of the increase over the previous year came from an installment payment by The Duke Endowment toward its one-time pledge of $75 million for scholarships. With this surge omitted, the increase did little more than cover inflation.

When measured against the university's budget growth, far exceeding inflation, the impact of the gifts actually diminished. The news release boasted about Brodhead's Financial Aid Initiative.

The claim that more than 75 percent has been pledged is distorted by over-subscription in areas like athletic scholarships. The undisclosed secret: only half of the money for need-based undergraduate aid is in sight, which puts the big goal of the initiative in jeopardy.

Finally there's clever, concealing wording about the Alumni Annual Fund. For 31 consecutive years news releases said the fund "exceeded its goal." This year, the Annual Fund merely "exceeded its previous year's total" with parts like the Law School ominously short of objective.

Overarching these details, to identify the $380 million as "philanthropic gifts" is seriously misleading; for example a large portion is for sponsored medical research, which is to say payment for work to be done.

Significantly, the university made no announcement of total contributions for perpetual endowment -- the heart of Duke's enduring strength.

Ed Rickards

Duke '63,
Duke Law School '66

Yes, the NYT & H-S. The N&O, too

Readers Note: I left the following comment on the thread of a KC Johnson's post, The Lacrosse Case, Law and the Media.

I'll be interested in your comments.

John
____________________________________________________

KC,

Regarding the sacrificing of "the players on the altar of 'victims’ rights' agenda," you mention the NY Times and the Durham H-S approached the case that way. I agree.

But the Raleigh N&O deserves to be listed with them and, IMHO, at the top of the list.

When the N&O "broke" the story on 3/24/06 it referred to Mangum seven times as the victim or in the possessive form without once using a qualifier such as "alleged."

The N&O's 3/25/06 "anonymous interview" set the metanarrative of the young black mother brutally beaten and gang-raped by privileged white males whose hard drinking, wild partying, white racist teammates were stonewalling police investigators.

The N&O knew that wasn’t true but it became “the Duke lacrosse rape” story that was jumped on by most of the rest of the media, including the NYT and H-S.

It was also “the case” that Nifong described when he began speaking publicly two days later.

The N&O’s deliberately fraudulent 3/25 story was the single most important Duke Hoax story last Spring. I believe it still is.

No news story did more to give a seeming legitimacy to Mangum’s lies, to fuel the witch hunt and to enable the massive injustices inflicted on so many innocent individuals and our community.

The N&O withheld from the 3/25 story news of the players’ cooperation with police and instead promulgated the “wall of silence” lie.

Do you know when and in what detail the N&O finally reported news of the players’ cooperation with police?

I've asked the N&O that question many times but I've never gotten a straight answer.

How does when and in what detail the N&O reported compare with when and in what detail the NYT reported on the players' cooperation?

Thanks in part to the Yeager/Pressler book, we know the N&O’s Ruth Sheehan relied on Nifong as an anonymous source for her 3/27 “Team’s Silence Is Sickening” column.

That column was very important for framing the players in the public’s mind. It helped Nifong and others move forward with their frame-up “investigation.”

For weeks the N&O worked very hard to slime the players while presenting what it knew was a false picture of Mangum.

So, for example, on 3/28 the N&O published on page one the names and misdemeanors charges involving the players while suppressing news it had from day one of Mangum’s far more serious criminal record.

Publishing Mangum's criminal record would also have revealed to readers that Mangum’s claim she was new to dancing before men, something the N&O just passed on to readers in the 3/25 story, was a lie.

And, of course, any reader who could "connect the dots" would have realized the N&O knew that when it published her "new to dancing before men" claim.

The N&O has never explained why it was, on the one hand, so eager to publish “the criminal records” of the lacrosse players while, on the other hand, it suppressed for two weeks news it had of Mangum’s far more serious and relevant criminal record; and then buried the news at the bottom of an unrelated story the ran inside the "A" section.

For thirteen months the N&O misled the public and sustained the Hoax by withholding the crucially important news, exculpatory for the players, that Mangum had said during the “anonymous interview” that Roberts was also sexually assaulted; that she didn’t report it for fear of losing her job; and that Roberts “would do anything for money.”

I can’t see how you could not list the N&O along with the NYT and H-S.

Thank you for all the great work you’ve done on this case.

John in Carolina

No Churchill Series today - Aug. 15, 2007

Folks,

I'm sorry but my work load is very heavy right now.

I plan a Series post for tomorrow.

Thank you for your understanding.

John

Dutch Bishop Says “Allah”

At World Net Daily:

Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.

Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, told the Dutch TV program "Network" Monday night he believes God doesn't mind what he is called, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported.

The Almighty is above such "discussion and bickering," he insisted.

Muskens points to Indonesia, where he served 30 years ago, as an example for Dutch churches. Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.

"Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years," Muskens said. "In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can't we start doing that together?"

OK, Bishop, now that you’ve brought the subject up, do you think Muslims should call Allah Christ?

About those Danish cartoonists: should Christians agree with Muslims who want to kill the cartoonists for publishing caricatures of Allah just as the cartoonists publish caricatures of Christ?

When a Muslim terrorist blows himself/herself up in an attempt to kill innocent people including infants, are you cool with calling those terrorists Christians?

What would you call Christian Dutch citizens who opposed, often at the cost of their lives, the Nazis’ treatment of Jews?

Not Muslims, I hope.

World Net continues:

Muskens thinks it could take another 100 years, but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches, promoting rapprochement between the two religions, he said, according to Radio Netherlands.

If you’re rooting for Muslim world domination, Bishop Muskens is one of your “beacons of hope.”

And isn’t that just what a Christian spiritual leader is supposed to be?

Opps! Sorry about that. Muskens no doubt wanted me to say “Muslim spiritual leader.”

You can read the entire report here.

Anti-American propaganda from AFP

Like al-Jazeera, the NY Times, and the AP, Agence French- Presse (AFP) bills itself as an unbiased news organization.

So like al-Jazeera and the rest, AFP claims it doesn’t engage in propaganda. What’s more, AFP will tell you it verifies what it reports.

With that in mind, follow this link and see if anything other than an anti-American propaganda can explain how Wissam al-Okaili’s photo made it past a series of AFP editors and was published for international distribution.

And read the whole post. It's all informative.

Hat Tip: Walter Abbott

DPD’s Hodge & “evidence collected”

Monday I posted “ What Did DPD's Hodge Say?” It concerned an MSNBC report of the forum held at NC Central University last April at which then DA Mike Nifong said would continue to seek to indicte Duke lacrosse players despite DNA evidence from the state crime lab which the public had just learned was negative for all the lacrosse players tested.

MSNBC’s report included this:

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC ).

Responding to the post, two Anons provided links to a Raleigh News & Observer Jan. 13, 2007 story reporting reactions to Nifong’s decision to recuse himself and turn the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office.

In that N&O story we find a subhead,

A police view,

followed by this:

Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred.

Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted.

"I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney."

My reactions?

Wow! And thank you, Anons. I’d either missed or forgot the Jan. 13 N&O story.

But look at how significant it now is.

Three months after that story appeared NC Attorney General Roy Cooper announced to the world there never was any actual evidence collected by DPD or Nifong. And just a few weeks ago Nifong himself admitted during a court hearing there was no evidence.

So why was Hodge last April talking to MSNBC about a strong case?

Why was Hodge telling the N&O in January about “evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred?”

Didn’t Hodge know DPD never had any credible evidence? He was in day-to-day charge of DPD during much of “the investigation, wasn’t he?

Why did Hodge say DPD had a strong case to arrest and help indict and prosecute for multiply felonies three men when there was no evidence of their guilt?

Aren’t police department administrators supposed to prevent that kind of thing from happening?

Is it possible Hodge didn’t know his department had no evidence of David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann’s guilt?

Was Hodge lied to about “this horrific crime” the way the public was?

Is it possible Hodge sincerely believed what he was saying because Nifong, DPD Cpl. David Addison, the department spokesperson who kept proclaiming crimes had been committed, and other DPD officers misled him?

The Durham City Council has asked the Whichard Committee to find out why DPD arrested and charged three men without any evidence of their guilt.

Surely the committee members will ask Hodge about the MSNBC and N&O reports.

The City Council and the public need to hear his answers.

The Churchill Series – Aug. 14, 2007

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

A story today that I hope makes you smile. While I can’t cite a source confirming that Churchill heard it, I feel sure he did. It’s an old story that’s floated around London for a very long time. And it’s just the sort of story Churchill loved.

In his lifetime the Carlton Club was one of London’s most exclusive and expensive private clubs as it is today. It has a strong Conservative Party connection going back to the 19th century. At the club’s website we read:

Today the Club continues to support the Party in many ways but the hub of the Party is now based in Victoria Street. The Carlton Club remains, however, the Conservative Club. (emphasis Carlton’s)

Well the story goes that during one session of Parliament a Labour MP from the Midlands took rooms a few miles from Westminster Palace. In nice weather, he’d walk there.

One day as he was passing the Carlton Club he had an urgent need to use the bathroom. So in he went.

Afterwards he freshened up using the clubs soaps and towels; and then was on his way.

He took to doing this just about every day and soon members noticed. They complained to the club’s governors.

The governors instructed the doorman to tell the Labour member he wasn't welcome to use the club’s bathroom.

So the next day as the MP was about to enter the club the doorman did as instructed. “I’m sorry, Sir, but the governors of this private club say they don’t want you coming in here.”

“Really? This is also a club?”

I hope you’re smiling.

Brodhead Opposes Proposed Boycott

A few hours ago I posted concerning American college and university heads’ opposition to a proposed boycott by Britain’s University and College Union of Israeli universities and scholars.

The post contained an excerpt from an NRO post stating Duke University President Richard Brodhead had refused to join in the opposition to the boycott.

That report is wrong. I apologize to President Brodhead and to you for posting the report.

When I finish this post, I’ll place an error alert, correction and apology at the head of the other post.

I want to thank the reader who called the error to my attention

I plan to let NRO know what I’ve learned. I also plan to send Brodhead an email commending him for his statement.

Here, from Duke News and dated July 27, 2007 is Brodhead’s statement :

I view the proposed academic boycott of Israeli universities by Great Britain’s University and College Union as a threat to all institutions of higher education, and I condemn it as such.

All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundational principle of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunity to be expressed. The protection of free speech is the protection of the notion that people can teach each other and learn from each other through the free airing of differences and the mutual engagement of opposing points of view.

To disbelieve that is in some fundamental way to disbelieve in education itself. Duke University has a proud tradition of upholding the free exchange of ideas, including discussions that involve the bitter, unresolved conflicts in the Middle East.

The idea of forbidding partnerships and exchanges with Israeli universities and scholars contradicts the high value we place in the pursuit of knowledge on our own campus and in the importance of robust intellectual integrity more broadly. I oppose efforts to suppress the free exchange of ideas at Duke and in university communities around the world.

Brodhead Silent on Boycott Proposal (Error Alert)

ERROR ALERT: The NRO post cited below is wrong as regards Duke President Richard Brodhead's position on the proposed boycott. Brodhead opposses the boycott. See this JinC post for his statement made on July 27.

I apologize to President Brodhead and to any of you who were misled by the post below.

John
__________________________

In the August 9 Chronicle of Higher Education we read:

More than 300 presidents of American colleges and universities have signed a statement assailing a proposal by Britain’s leading faculty union to consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

The statement ( full text below – JinC), which was written by Columbia University’s president, Lee C. Bollinger and ran as an advertisment in Wednesday’s New York Times, follows widespread criticism since the University and College Union passed a resolution ($ req.) in May calling for the group to debate whether to refuse to work with Israeli academics over the country’s Palestinian policies.

Last week a group called Scholars for Peace in the Middle East said it had gathered 10,000 signatures on an online petition opposing the faculty union’s proposal.

Those signing the statement include the presidents of Cornell, Dartmouth, M.I.T., Penn and Princeton as well as U. N. C. – Chapel Hill Chancellor James Moeser.

Harvard President Drew Gilpin condemned the boycott proposal in a separate statement.

And what about Duke’s President, Richard ( “The facts kept changing.”) Brodhead?

This today from NRO [excerpt]:

Brodhead's refusal to sign is curious given how outspoken he was on public issues surrounding the Duke lacrosse case and, before that, how staunch his defense was of Duke's willingness to host the 2004 national convention of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement, whose members had endorsed suicide bombing.

I recall at the time of the PSM convention Brodhead saying how important it was that Duke host it as a demonstration of the University’s commitment to the free expression of ideas.

I regularly check Duke News. If I see anything regarding Brodhead and the boycott effort, I’ll post on it. If you see something first, please comment on the thread of a recent post.

Thanks.

Now here’s President Bollinger’s statement:


As a citizen, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent vote by Britain’s new University and College Union to advance a boycott against Israeli academic institutions.

As a university professor and president, I find this idea utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the moment. In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars this vote threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international marketplace of ideas.

At Columbia I am proud to say that we embrace Israeli scholars and universities that the UCU is now all too eager to isolate -- as we embrace scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their governments' policies.

Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish.

Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education.

Hat Tip: Mike Williams

The Churchill Series – Aug. 13, 2007

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

I want to do something different today.

Instead of a post about Churchill, I'm offering a post about someone Churchill knew and admired. Let's call what I'm doing a “guest appearance” post.

Today’s “guest” is General of the Army and later both Secretary of State and Defense, George C. Marshall.

During WW II Churchill and Marshall had their rounds over strategy and resource allocations, but each had great respect for the other. As the war was drawing to a close, Churchill saluted Marshall as “the organizer of victory.”

In 1929 Marshall was a Colonel stationed at Fort Benning, just outside Columbus, Georgia. He was forty-eight and a very lonely man. His first wife, Lily, had died the previous year from complications related to a coronary condition.

Marshall was invited to a dinner party in Columbus at which another guest was Katherine Tupper Brown, a widow with three children. She was in Columbus to visit friends. She’d later record her first sight of Marshall: “I will never forget. George had a way of looking right straight through you. He had such keen blue eyes and he was straight and very military.”

The two chatted throughout dinner. Afterwards Marshall offered to “drive Mrs. Brown home.” He said he’d have no trouble finding Mrs. William Blanchard’s house, where she was staying.

Marshall biographer Ed Cray tells us what happened next:

Having assured her he knew the Blanchard residence where Mrs. Brown was staying, Marshall spent an hour driving the streets of the small town of Columbus while the two of them chatted.

Finally Mrs. Brown asked, “How long have you been at Fort Benning?”

“Two years,” the colonel answered.

“Well, after two years, haven’t you learned your way around Columbus?”

“Extremely well, or I could not have stayed off the block where Mrs. Blanchard lives.”

___________________________________________________________
Ed Cray, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman. (W. W. Norton & Co., 1990) (pgs. 107-108)

Julia Childs: Wise Words

Julia Childs was once asked how you pick out a “nice company roast.”

“First, make friends with your butcher.”

Adding sugar to tomato-based sauces to enhance the flavor: should you do it?

Childs said, “Yes, but only so much that when your dinner guests leave they're thinking: ‘That sauce had such a good tomato flavor. I wonder whether she didn’t add just a bit of sugar.’”

A magazine once asked her to give cooking advice in 20 words or less: “Use the best and freshest ingredients. Season a little at a time, tasting often as you go along.”

I love her cookbooks.

And everything I've learned about her as a person makes me wish I'd known her.

What Did DPD’s Hodge Say?

While researching the Duke Hoax case I looked at an MSNBC report of the April 11, 2006 forum held at NC Central University during which Mike Nifong announced he would continue to prosecute the case despite DNA evidence from the state crime lab which the public had just learned was negative for all the lacrosse players tested.

Here’s the story’s ninth paragraph:

"I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC ).

I wasn’t aware Hodge had spoken to a news organization at that time, much less that he said publicly something MSNBC reported amounted to asserting the police had “a strong case” as of April 11, 2006.

That’s just the opposite of what NC Attorney General Roy Cooper told the public exactly one year to the day later when he said there never was any credible evidence of the crimes alleged. That’s also what Mike Nifong said a few weeks ago in court as part of his apology to the players ( Text of Nifong’s statement here.)

We know that at least between the period March 24 and 27, 2006 DPD spokesperson and sworn officer Cpl. David Addison repeatedly made false statements about “crimes;” and that he distributed to police substations, news organizations and others on March 28 the text of the Durham CrimeStoppers’ Wanted poster falsely stating crimes had been committed at the lacrosse party.

But the MSNBC report is the first I’ve seen indicating Hodge, the DPD’s second highest ranking officer and at the time in day-to-day charge of the department because of the absence of Chief Chalmers, may have directly helped propagate what we now know was a deliberate falsehood.

The MSNBC report is certainly something the Whichard Committee should look at and consider questioning Hodge about.

It's surely of interest to attorneys working with players and their parents who are considering civil actions against DPD and Durham City.

The Raleigh N&O and the Durham H-S should followup on the MSNBC report, ask Hodge what he said and find out what record MSNBC has of his remarks.

I searched the archives of both papers for the period April 10 to 20, 2006 and found nothing for Hodge.