Farm subsidies: Good for whom?

Economist and columnist Robert Samuelson says:

The farm legislation proceeding through Congress symbolizes much of what's wrong with Washington. It's government by inertia.

We do today what we did yesterday, because politicians draw their power from distributing benefits and various interest groups feel entitled to receive them -- even if they serve no defensible public purpose.

Our extravagant farm programs capture the absurdity as well as any other.
Since 1970, farm subsidies have totaled $578 billion, according to the historical tables of the U.S. budget. What has the public gotten for this vast outlay?

Not much. Food would be produced without subsidies. Roughly 90 percent of commodity payments go to farmers raising grains (wheat, corn), soybeans, cotton and rice; these products represent about a fifth of farm cash receipts.

Meanwhile, meat, vegetable and fruit producers get no direct subsidies. Does anyone truly think that, without subsidies, Iowa's cornfields and Kansas's wheat fields would go fallow?

Samuelson goes on to answer his question:

If subsidies vanished, some high-cost farms would cut production or switch crops. Some land values would drop because one source of income (federal payments) would disappear. Still, food supplies would be ample.

The proof: the rest of agriculture that manages without federal largess. In 2005, meat output alone (beef, chicken, pork, veal) totaled 86.8 billion pounds.

Well sure, but what politician running for President wants to go to Des Moines and say, “If I become President, I’ll work to gradually eliminate farm subsides?”

No, they don’t do that, do they? Instead they wax poetic about how much they love “the family farm” and how hard they’ll work to preserve it.

If you can tell a plow from a cow you know that’s nothing but a coded message: “I’ll keep those subsidies flowing and growing."

Samuelson notes:

Farm subsidies date to the Great Depression. In 1932, there were 6.7 million farms, and the farm population was 25 percent of the nation's total.

By 2002, the number of farms had dwindled to 2.1 million, and the farm population was about 2 percent of the total. More mechanization, better seeds and cultivation practices have enabled fewer, bigger farms to produce more food.

There is often a life cycle in government programs. They start for good cause or with good intentions, then perpetuate themselves by creating a protective web of interests -- constituents who believe that they have property rights in benefits, politicians whose power derives from renewing or expanding the benefits, and lobbies that exist to influence crucial politicians. Farm programs adhere faithfully to this cycle.

They sure do.

And now that both major parties have farm subsidies firmly in place, they’re looking around for more fertile ground where they can plant new spending programs that will help them reap votes.

Hey, how about more government involvement in health care?

Samuelson’s column is here.

Hat tip: Realclearpolitics.com

The Churchill Series – Sept. 11, 2007

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

Readers Note: The series posts often go up late. Therefore, yesterday’s post contained passages from Churchill’s speeches appropriate to a remembrance of September 11, 2001.

John
_____________________________________________

In 1940 President Roosevelt sent Churchill a message telling him England was about to be invaded. Roosevelt not only named the day, he told Churchill the exact time the invasion would occur. No kidding.

In Finest Hour (Houghton Mifflin, 1983) historian Martin Gilbert explains what happened:

On the morning of Sunday September 22 Churchill received a message from Roosevelt, stating that the German invasion of Britain would take place that very day, at 3 p.m.

But Churchill was “thoroughly skeptical,” [his Private Secretary John] Colville noted, while Clementine Churchill and their daughter Mary “treated the whole matter as a most entertaining joke.” …

On receiving the news, Churchill telephoned [Secretary of State for War Anthony ] Eden, who was spending the weekend on the south coast. Eden’s comment was that “it was wet and blowing” and that he “felt quite safe.”

Then, after going to the top of a nearby hill and looking towards France, Eden sent Churchill a further message: “it was so rough,” he said, “that any German who attempted to cross the Channel would be very sea-sick.”

It emerged that the message from Roosevelt had been garbled. Not Britian, but French Indo-China, was the country about to be invaded. That afternoon Japanese forces occupied Saigon. The German troops remained at Calais, across the stormy Channel from Dover. (p. 802)

The garbling must have led to a lot of finger-pointing and the chewing out of code clerks and signal officers on both sides of the Atlantic.

I’ll comment further on the incident tomorrow.

Butler’s Column & My Comments

Chronicle columnist and Duke senior Kristin Butler has plenty to say today about the Hoax case and Durham. Here are excerpts with some JinC commentary in italics.

Butler begins:

This was a sensational week for lacrosse case followers. Among other things, Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's highly anticipated book was released Tuesday, lacrosse players demanded that Durham pay $30 million to cover its misdeeds and former Durham DA Mike Nifong even did his 24-hour stint in the pokey. […]

As expected, Nifong's contempt trial featured a litany of "only-in-Durham" moments. My personal favorite was when [Nifong] suggested (under oath) that Crystal Mangum's young son may have contributed some of the unidentified male DNA found on swabs taken from her panties, vagina and rectum.

Also extraordinary was the testimony of local judges Ron Stephens and Marcia Morey, who both supported the disgraced DA during the sentencing phase of his trial. Stephens, who initially presided over the case in Spring 2006, praised Nifong for (of all things!) "enforc[ing] the rules" and being "a good lawyer, a real good lawyer" whose "word was his bond."

Morey, by contrast, asserted that it was acceptable for prosecutors to willfully lie to the court during a pretrial hearing-a remarkable thing for a judge (who has presumably studied the law at some point in her career) to say. Morey was later seen marching with Nifong as he entered the Durham County Detention Center to serve his sentence, where she was joined by 20 supporters carrying signs that read "We believe in your integrity and goodness." […]

Let’s excuse the 20 supporters as people with very strong beliefs formed in very mushy brains. Such people often wind up supporting the Nifongs of this world.

But what about the judges? They’re not supposed to have mushy brains. And their strong beliefs are supposed to include commitments to justice and a willingness to cleanse the court system of those who trample on innocent citizens.

Do Judges Stephens and Morey have any idea what their “hosannahs” for Nifong told thoughtful citizens about them and what “justice in Durham” must really be like?

Morey’s statements about what’s OK in her courtroom deserve attention from the NC State Bar.

Message to Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson: I hope your next book is about the Durham court system. Suggested title: “Anything Goes.”

Butler continues:

When I hear such things, I wonder how Durham officials expect us to have any confidence in this county's justice system at all.

Over the past 18 months we've seen a succession of judges, assistant district attorneys, police officers, city council members and other high-ranking officials (like City Manager Patrick Baker and Chief of Police Steve Chalmers) lining up to support or cover for Nifong.

Even newly appointed interim DA David Saacks-who is widely described as moderate and relatively untainted by the scandal-appeared on Nifong's behalf at the contempt trial.

For these highly educated, ostensibly well-respected people to defend Nifong after everything he's done-after all, the man was willing to send three young men to prison for 30 years to save his pension-is a disgrace, and one that reaffirms many Duke students' deeply held mistrust of this county's justice system.

That's why I hope settlement talks for Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans will encourage the reforms that city officials have neglected. It was widely reported last week that the three are seeking $30 million from the city, and I hope they get every penny.[…]

Butler’s entire column is here. I hope you read it.

9/11 Remembrance & Resistance

Memory helps keep alive the freedoms and values we cherish and the people – dead and alive – we want to always be with us.

With that in mind, I hope you’ll visit some of the following blogs and other places today.

Michelle Malkin's Remembrance and Resistance post which provided the title for this post and Lorie Byrd’s Six Years Later We Will Not Forget are outstanding starting places.

Both posts are rich in texts, photos, audios and video clips which recall and honor the many who served on September 11, 2001 and the many who died that day, with some of their last acts heroic.

Lorie’s post has many links. It's where I found this link to the text of President Bush’s Sept. 20, 2001 Address to the Congress and Nation.

Also thanks to Lorie I found this link to Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds’ posting on 9/11 right as events were unfolding.

Finally, William Teach at the Raleigh, NC based Pirate’s Cove posts with many “never forget” statements and photos. Here’s one of them from September, 2005:

Al Qaeda traditionally issues a video every year on the anniversary, with the last testament of one of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. This year’s video showed hijacker Waleed al-Shehri, addressing the camera and warning the U.S.: "We shall come at you from your front and back, your right and left."

Let us honor our heroes, cherish our values and never forget what Waleed al-Shehri and his ilk are telling us and working night and day to do.

The Churchill Series - Sept. 10, 2007

The following post was first published on July 7, 2005 following terrorist attacks that day on a London train and buses which killed dozens of people.

The post was meant as an act of solidarity and resolve with our U.K. friends.

I'm reposting it on the eve of the 9/11 Anniversary because Churchill's words have great meaning for us here in the States as well as for people everywhere resisting the awful menaces of Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism.

John
_______________________________________________

"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.'' Churchill speaking at his old school, Harrow. October 29, 1941

"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar." His first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC. May 19, 1940

Today we may say aloud before an awe-struck world: "We are still masters of our fate. We are still captain of our souls." Speech on the War Situation, House of Commons, September 9, 1941

"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" Speech after Dunkirk, House of Commons, June 4, 1940

"Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, This was their finest hour." Speech following the collapse of France, House of Commons, June 18, 1940

Quotes and citations found at the Churchill Centre website.

KC at Duke: A Q&A, DAs & taping.

The distinguished historian Robert KC Johnson's been in the forefront of the fight to stop the injustices of now disbarred Durham DA Mike Nifong and his enablers in the Duke/Durham community.

Tuesday, September 11, KC will be at Page Auditorium on Duke's West Campus.

Directions to the event are here along with other information.

The public's invited. There's no admission charge.

Now an update:

KC's talk will last about 45 minutes. If you've ever heard him speak, you know he's an organized and thoughtful speaker who assumes his listeners' are intelligent and want to know the facts.

Following KC's talk, they'll be a 45 minute Q&A

And what about the DAs, you ask?

Those would be defense attorneys.

A number of the attorneys who defended the falsely accused Duke students will be there tomorrow night.

I'll be sure to speak to at least one of them if by tomorrow afternoon I'm indicted by a Durham grand jury.

Mind you, I'm not expecting that to happen, but it's nice to know the attorneys will be there just in case.

One other item: You can audio or video tape KC's talk and the Q&A.

Now some of you may be saying: "But at the February Shut Up forum at Duke with all those Group of 88 professors and their colleagues talking, we weren't allowed to tape. Why are we being allowed to tape the event with KC?"

That's a fair question.

I hope some of the Group of 88 who read this blog will tell us why the Feburary Shut Up event couldn't be taped.

And I hope many of you will be there tomorrow night.

Dems' "General Betray Us" ad

The Democrats at Moveon.org and the New York Times teamed up today, the eve of the 6th Anniversary of 9/11, to produce the General Betray Us ad. You can get a look at it here at Q and O.

Be careful with your comments. You know how Dems hate it when anyone questions their patriotism.

BTW – You’ll have a chance to vote for a Dem for President next year. The General Betray Us ad is intended to help convince you to vote for Senator Hillary Clinton or whomever else the Dems select in ’08 to be General Petraeus’ and our troops’ next commander-in-chief.

Also BTW – I’m not a Republican but I could never belong to the party that’s fighting to smear Petraeus and defeat what he and our troops are trying to do in Iraq.

What about you?

Hat tip: Mike Williams

Slandering General Petraeus

Today’s lead editorial in the Washington Times begins:

To no one's surprise, the character assassins haven't waited for Gen. David Petraeus to deliver his report on the Iraqi troop "surge" before starting the campaign to trash his honor and reputation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed Gen. Petraeus made statements "over the years that have not proved to be factual," and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin suggested Gen. Petraeus had "manipulated" statistics.

The Democrats' ideological soulmates at MoveOn.org have an advertisement scheduled to run in today's New York Times titled: "General Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us?"

The MoveOn.org announcement in particular is worth keeping in mind the next time you hear lectures from the Democrats and the far left about how the Bush administration is "questioning our patriotism."

There’s much more to the Washington Times’ editorial, including a very effective refutation of the Dems' slanders, before it ends with:

[The Democrats] should stop slandering the good name of Gen. Petraeus — especially given that favorite talking point about how much they "support the troops.

Decent Americans wish the Democrats would stop slandering General Petraeus.

That said, who can't understand why so many Democrats feel they have to slander Petraeus? Afterall, if he and his troops are successful, it makes it much harder for the Democrats to win the ’08 election war.

If you don’t believe that, just ask any NY Times editorial board member or DNC chair Howard (“The Scream”) Dean.

The entire editorial is here.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Johnsville News’ Pics Questions

The Johnsville News has a don’t miss post today which begins:

The Duke lacrosse party pics helped prove that "something 'did not' happen" at the party.

So why did Mike Nifong, many in the mainstream media, and lots of people ignore this important evidence?

Dan Abrams of MSNBC first showed the alibi party photos on April 19th, 2006. He had seen and talked about them on April 14th. The defense attorneys vouched for their authenticity.

The NC Attorney General relied upon them to create a detailed timeline for the incident.

They were key evidence in supporting the players innocence. The photos were the linchpin for The Johnsville News lacrosse party timeline (the first one), which was started on April 21st, 2006.

TJN includes links and photos in its post before concluding:

It is truly amazing that the lacrosse party photos and the March 16th police photo were ignored by so many.

Pupils in the "something happened" school of retardation had to also fake blindness in order to justify their belief.

TJN’s post brought to mind the old expression: There are none so blind as those who won’t see.

In the case of the Duke Hoax, there were many in MSM who were “blind” because they didn’t want to see the players declared innocent and Mangum, Nifong and their “activist” and Duke faculty allies exposed for peddling falsehoods most of MSM had helped hype.

MSM’s “blindness” last Spring included failing to produce pictures and descriptions of the very small bathroom in the lacrosse party house which Mangum claimed was the place where three large athletes beat and raped her for 30 minutes.

People who’ve been in that bathroom tell me if the public had realized how small the bathroom is, they’d have been asking: “How could four people all squeeze in there and do all the things the accuser and Nifong are saying happened?”

But MSM outfits didn’t show the bathroom then and they haven’t shown it since.

It’s fair to ask whether MSM’s failure to show us the bathroom even now isn’t because they don’t want the public to see how shamelessly most of MSM misled us on the Hoax.

Be sure to take a look at TJN’s post here.

KC JOHNSON AT DUKE TOMORROW NIGHT

If you don’t know who KC Johnson is, ask disbarred and disgraced former Durham DA Mike Nifong. Or, if you’re on Duke’s campus, ask any member of Duke’s justly scorned faculty Group of 88.

But after you ask, be ready to jump out of the way because no one’s done more than KC to expose the injustices of what we used to call “the Duke lacrosse rape case” or more to call attention to those who helped enable those injustices.

KC will be speaking at Duke tomorrow night, Tuesday, September 11 at 7 PM in Page Auditorium on Duke’s West Campus.

Page is located next to Duke Chapel (to the left as you face the Chapel). Here’a a link to mapquest.com for those of you who are visually oriented.

There's a large, well-lit parking deck ( Bryan Center deck) just behind and across from the Chapel off Science Drive.

From the Bryan Center deck to Page is an easy two or three minute walk.

There’s not much chance you can get lost but if you do, there'll be plenty of people to ask because you’ll be in a pedestrian area right by the Bryan Student Center.

Admission is free. The public is welcome.

As many of you know, KC’s just co-authored with Stuart Taylor Until Proven Innocent, a gripping, inside account of the attempted frame-up of three innocent Duke students and how it was exposed. Noted scholar Abigail Thernstrom, in her Wall Street Journal review, called the book “stunning.”

According to Ken Larrey who's handling public information for KC’s talk, the book will be on sale for $17 - $10 off the retail price - and there will
be a book signing by KC following his talk.

The event is co-sponsored by Duke Students for an Ethical Duke and the Program on Values and Ethics in the Marketplace (VEM).

So how’s a suit made?

The post title is tongue-in-cheek.

What I’m really doing is providing a link to Answers.com’s definition of litigation which is followed by a very understandable outline of how a plaintiff begins a process which can result in a civil suit going to trial and what may follow that.

The outline’s in understandable English with links to other legal terms which are also explained in understandable English.

I found the outline very helpful. I hope you do, too.

Caution: We're talking an outline only.

Terror War Strategy

With the 9/11 Anniversary two days away Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby says America's war on terror strategy is working:

IF THERE WAS one thing we all knew after Sept. 11, 2001, it was that another massacre was coming. The next terrorist attack on US soil, it was asserted time and again, was not a matter of if, but of when.

Americans weren't the only ones who expected Al Qaeda to commit another slaughter. Al Qaeda did, too.

Earlier this year, terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed that in addition to 9/11, he had been planning to attack the Sears Tower in Chicago, the New York Stock Exchange, and the Empire State Building, and to blow up US embassies and nuclear power plants.[…]

Jacoby’s got it right. Remember all those pundits saying, “It’s only a matter of time?” Most of us listened and nodded.

What happened? Why, thank God, have there been no successful attacks in America these past six years?

Jacoby’s take:

There is no definitive answer to that question. But surely the place to begin is with the belated recognition that we were at war.

The jihad against us didn't begin on 9/11. It had started long before, with the seizure of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Years of Islamist bombings, hijackings, and hostage-takings followed, but few Americans recognized that war was being waged against us by a determined enemy that cried "Death to America!" and meant it.

In a New York Times column two months before 9/11, the former deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office pooh-poohed as "fantasies" the belief that "the United States is the most popular target of terrorists" and that "extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism."

The attacks of 9/11 ripped away such comfortable misjudgments. President Bush declared at once that we were at war with terrorism, and likened it to the global wars against Nazism and Communism.

The US government overhauled its counterterrorism operations, moving aggressively to disrupt and damage Al Qaeda's maneuvers abroad and to uproot would-be jihadists at home.

After years in which terrorism was regarded as a legal crime to be prosecuted after the fact, the Bush administration made preemption the overriding goal. Instead of waiting for terrorists to strike, the government - armed with expanded powers to seize records, monitor communications, and search homes and businesses - would strike first. […]

Terrorist funding channels were choked off. Reliance on human intelligence was dramatically expanded. American counterterrorism officers worked closely with their counterparts in friendly countries to identify jihadists and - as with last week's arrests in Germany - prevent attacks.

Taking the war to the enemy in Afghanistan deprived Al Qaeda of a secure base and crippled its leaders' ability to travel and communicate. Many Al Qaeda operatives have been killed; others have been seized by US troops and forcefully - sometimes too forcefully - interrogated. In all these ways and more, the United States has indeed been fighting a war on terrorism, a war more intense, more unrelenting, more sophisticated, and - as six years of domestic safety suggest - more successful than anyone could have conceived before 9/11.

But if the terrible events of that day finally concentrated American minds on the deadly threat from radical Islam, the US response to those terrible events may have had a similar effect on the minds of Osama bin Laden and his allies.

It is one thing to launch spectacular attacks against a paper tiger that doesn't have the spine to fight back. It is something very different to attack a superpower that reacts with fury and a terrible swift sword.(emphasis added)[…]

I often worry there isn’t enough appreciation in the West for our civilization and enough willingness to use “ a terrible swift sword” to defend it and destroy our enemies who are bent on killing peaceful people and inflicting the horrors Muslim extremism on those who survive.

We're in a war with enemies every bit as evil as the Nazis.

Something else: While our strike first and hard strategy has had a deterent effect, it’s not a guarentee we won’t be hit in the future. When we're attacked again here in America, they’ll be the usual people talking about what we did to deserve it and how we need to “be nicer.”

Baloney. We need to be much tougher now, and we’ll need to be much tougher then.

Jacoby reminds us of that in his close:

What is in the enemy's mind we cannot know for sure. What we do know - what 9/11 made brutally clear - is that we are at war. The enemy is in this till the finish. We had better be, too.

Jacoby’s entire column is here.

Biden, Kerry attack Petraeus

This today from the AP:

President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that although there's been some mild security progress, there is in fact no security in Baghdad or Anbar province where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

A few days in Iraq and decades in the U. S. Senate: that's all Biden needs to be able to tell the military commander in Iraq what's really going on there and call him "dead flat wrong."

The AP continues:

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

Officials familiar with their thinking told The Associated Press over the weekend that the advisers would urge Congress not to make significant changes. Their report will note that while national political progress has been disappointing, security gains in local areas have shown promise, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.[...]

But why do we have to listen to General Petraeus when Democrat Biden is telling us what's what in Iraq?

If anyone has any doubt about Biden being right, the AP says Senator John Kerry agrees with Biden:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., agreed. "The problem is, if you don't have a deadline and you don't require something of the Iraqis, they're simply going to use our presence as cover for their willingness to delay, which is what they have done month after month after month," he said.

"I think the general will present the facts with respect to the statistics and the tactical successes or situations as he sees them," Kerry said. "But none of us should be fooled — not the American people, not you in the media, not us in Congress — we should not be fooled into this tactical success debate."

So John Kerry doesn't want us to be fooled by General Petreaus? He wants us to listen to him and Biden and ignore what Petraeus says.

Now, if Petraeus were to say he favored an immediate pullout from Iraq, I'll bet Biden, Kerry and most other Dems would tell us we needed to listen to the General.

Folks, I hope Biden, Kerry, and other Dems aren't fooling any of you. They have an Iraq agenda and they don't want any General or an improving military situation in Iraq getting in the way of "the script" they're preparing for the '08 election campaign.

The entire AP article is here.

Durham Suits & Readers’ Comments

Readers Note:

I’m continuing a trial to see whether responding to your comments in the form below allows me to respond to more comments with the time I have.

I read all your comments. If a comment isn’t specifically noted, it may be because I’ve noted recently the matter your comment deals with, the matter is too complex for a brief answer, it’s some nice words which I appreciate but don’t need to comment on, etc.

Today I'm responding to a least a part of every comment on the Pricing Durham Suits thread as of Noon today.

John
_________________________________________________

Anon @ 2:49 noted there may be many other expensive suits in the making in Durham. I agree.

Anon @ 2:49 wants to see Crystal Mangum “measured” for a suit.

In a perfect world, that would happen. But every attorney I talk to says it won’t “because there’s no money to collect from her.”

Anon @ 2:54 said : “The problem for Durham is not just that these events occurred, but that they [released] a report saying nothing was wrong. The Deputy police Commissioner even is on video commenting that "he could not even recall an issue with the DPD in recent years" (the crowd all laughed at him).

Durham embraced the fraud and endorsed it. Now they are on the hook. They could pass a "boy, are we dumb tax" to cover the lawsuits. “

The attorneys I talk to say Anon @ 2:54 has it right about the city making itself libel by virtue of knowing what happened; not taking action to correct it: and, in some instances, saying what was done was OK

Ken @ 2:57 provided the address where you’ll find in pdf form Durham’s annual budget:

http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/bms/pdf/0708b_overview.pdf

Thank you, Ken.

Ken also expresses a hope many of us have that the suits will enable us to learn more about what really went on and who did what with whose approval.

Anon @ 3:08 doesn’t “believe this corruption can be hidden away much longer. …

The curtain is about to rise.”

“The curtain is about to rise.” Gee, I wish I had thought to say that first.

Anon @ 6:39 pointed out that a $5 million liability policy isn’t much in this day and age.

Yes. I wonder why Durham doesn’t have more coverage. I’d also like to know how much, given the $500,000 deductible, Durham pays for the $5 million coverage; and how that compares with what cities of comparable size pay for the same amount of coverage with the same deductible.

Mike in Nevada @ 11:00 says “The facts were clear enough by November to determine Nifong did not have a case.”

Absolutely.

Mike goes on to say that therefore anyone who voted for Nifong was either “a moron or a racist.”

Some were certainly either one of the other; and many were both.

There were also, I believe, many decent and intelligent blacks who voted for Nifong because they couldn’t break from the Democratic line on which Nifong ran.

Then there were many white liberals, leftists, academics and others who aren’t morons but voted for Nifong because he was just the kind of DA they wanted.

They saw Nifong using the power of the state to validate their prejudices; and they loved it. Those people were, to use a crude figurative description President Lyndon Johnson once used, “so excited they were peeing all over themselves.”

A more genteel way to say that might be to call such people “Nifong activists with hyperactive urinary tract systems.”

Anon @ 11:07 hopes Councilman Stith will beat Mayor Bell in the November election.

I don’t plan to say anything about that race now. But I’ll come back to it.

Anon @ 12:29 wants the three players considering suits to bring them to trial so the knowledge the public gains can be used to hold the malefactors and their enablers to account.

I’d like to see that happen but I respect people who’ve been victimized deciding to accept a settlement and avoid a trial.

Whether or not the suits go to trial, we are still going to need the state and federal investigations many of us have been asking for for more than a year.

And finally, folks, this comment responding to my saying 4 X $125 = $600 per family of four:

Anonymous said...
4 X $125 = $500 dollars

not $600 per family of four

You’re right, Anon. Thank you for pointing out my error.

And thank you all for commenting.

Questions for Liestoppers

At Liestoppers today Baldo does his usual wonderful job cartooning Nifong and Joan Foster has a poem that asks what we all ought to be asking Duke's and Durham's leaders:

What's the price for thirty million lies?
Your name disgraced, your face despised?
Nifong, professors, pundits, press...
Baker "stands behind" Crystal's 5-tale mess.

LS has a bumper sticker that says it all about Nifong.

And there are all those Nifong mug shot prints.

But don't let those mug shots stop you.

Be sure to visit and keep scrolling.

Now questions for Liestoppers’ legal team:

If DPD Officer Ben Himan turns state’s evidence and admits he saw someone conspiring with DNA Security owner Brian Meehan to withhold evidence exculpatory for the Duke lacrosse players;

and when Himan’s shown a photo array of 7 mug shots, he immediately points to one and shouts, “That’s the guy; that’s the guy who wanted the evidence kept out of Meehan’s report;”

could the state use Himan’s photo ID to get an indictment even if all 7 photos were of Nifong?

What if the photo “lineup” had been approved by Durham City Manager Patrick Baker and DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge? Would that make a difference?

Also, would it make a difference if the Durham City Council and Duke’s senior administrators and Board of Trustees all knew about the ID setup and raised no objection to it?

Could Nifong later bring a suit, claiming he’d been framed?

Please take your time before answering. The last thing Durham needs is another rush to judgment, racism and criminality.

The last one led to monumental injustices and has already cost the city and state millions, with some of the biggest bills for investigative travesties and crimes committed yet to be paid.

Nifong To Prison? I Think So

Press reports say when he left jail today after serving a one day sentence for criminal contempt involving lying in court, disgraced and disbarred former Durham DA Mike Nifong “ thanked the jail staff for 'the professionalism of which I was treated and the respect which I was shown.’” The entire story is here.

I think it's very likely Nifong will get another chance to thank professionals who keep him incarcerated.

Why do I say that?

I’ll start my answer by reposting Cheshire's News; JinC Comments which was posted May 19. The post ends at the star line, after which I’ll offer some commentary concerning events since May 19 that make it even more likely than it was on May 19 that Nifong will go to prison.

Now let's start with Cheshire's News; JinC Comments

News from Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle:

A six-page internal report on the Durham Police Department's conduct during the lacrosse case has left some calling for an external investigation. …

"I would not be surprised if [an independent investigation] would uncover conduct that was criminal in nature as it relates to obstruction of justice and creation of evidence," Joe Cheshire, an attorney for Evans, wrote in an e-mail. …

Commentary from JinC:

Some people reading Cheshire’s statement may be saying: “What else is new? I’ve been saying that for months.”

Yes, haven’t we all. But only one of us could possibly be Joe Cheshire, one of North Carolina’s most experienced and best criminal defense and appellate attorneys, and certainly its best known.

When in reference to the Durham Police investigation, Cheshire says publicly and in a written document that he “would not be surprised if [an independent investigation] would uncover conduct that was criminal in nature as it relates to obstruction of justice and creation of evidence,” what he’s really saying it he feels very sure it will.

At this point, with his client David Evans out of legal jeopardy and actually declared innocent along with Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, Cheshire can only hurt his reputation if he makes such serious charges and they’re not sustained.

Cheshire will also damage his working relationships with honest law enforcement personnel (there are many) if they view him as irresponsibly throwing charges at crime investigators and police.

Cheshire knows all of that, and he doesn’t want to hurt his reputation and working relationships he’s worked very hard to build. He's also a fair person who doesn't cheap-shot.

So we can be very confident Cheshire feels sure criminal acts were committed by members of the Nifong/DPD “team;” and that it can and will be proven to the public beyond a reasonable doubt that the Nifong/DPD “team” committed those crimes.

That, to me, makes The Chronicle’s Cheshire news item hugely important.

What do you think?

The Chronicle story is here.

***************************************************************************
Now let's look at some of what's happened since May 19.

Nifong admitted during a July 26 apology in court to the players and their families that there never was any evidence of the players' guilt.

Yes, he subsequently went back on that admission during his contempt trial Aug. 30 & 31, but his doing that only adds to his reputation as a chronic liar. Being known as a chronic liar isn't a crime, but it makes it tougher for you to defend yourself when you're accused of crimes and try to convince a jury: "I didn't do any of that stuff. Honest, I didn't."

Also, the brief defense attorneys prepared for Nifong's contempt trial, depositions and contempt trial testimony, all strengthen the case that Nifong's conduct during the "investigation" was criminal.

And, of course, there was Judge Smith's finding at the conclusion of the trial as reported by the AP:

Reading his decision from the bench minutes after the end of two days of testimony, Judge Smith said Mr. Nifong "willfully made false statements" in September when he insisted he had given the defense all results from a critical DNA test.

If a prosecutor "willfully" makes "false statements" to a court regarding a case in which he was the de facto lead investigator as well as the prosecutor, it's hard to see how he could not have committed crimes in addition to criminal contempt of court.

And how many times during his live blogging of the trial did KC Johnson call attention to statements other witnesses made that contradicted statements Nifong made?

Now add in the recent request then interim Durham DA Jim Hardin made that the NC Attorney General launch a criminal investigation of the Nifong-led "Duke lacrosse investigation."

What does it tell us that Hardin, the man who in 2005 recommended Nifong succeed him as DA, now recommends a criminal investigation of the Duke lacrosse case after he's had many weeks to study the case file?

It's not 100% certain that Nifong will be convicted of crimes, sentenced, and wind up spending time behind bars.

But it's all very likely to happen. Nifong had to do an awful lot criminal to indict three innocent young men on multiple felonies when he had no real evidence (recall Cheshire's term "creation of evidence").

Nifong then had to do an awful lot criminal to cover-up what he did to get the fraudulent indictments.

I'm betting and hoping Nifong goes to prison for what he did. And I wouldn't rule out that he'll be convicted of both state and federal crimes.

What do you folks think?

The Churchill Series – Sept. 7, 2007

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

In August 1941 Churchill sailed on HMS Prince of Wales to Placentia Bay, Newfoundland where met with President Roosevelt. On his way, Churchill had a chance to do some recreational reading.

In Chasing Churchill: The Travels of Winston Churchill (Carroll & Graf, 2003), his granddaughter, Celia Sandys, says:

For relaxing reading, he had a copy of C. S. Forester’s naval adventure Captain Hornblower which had been given to him by Oliver Lyttelton, the Minister of State in Cairo.

When radio restrictions were briefly lifted he sent Lyttelton the message: “Hornblower admirable.”

This caused consternation among the staff at Middle East Headquarters, who vainly searched their files for an operation code-named “Hornblower,” on which they thought they were being complimented. (p. 141)

I hope you all have an admirable weekend and are back on Monday.

John

Fun with Hill & Bill

With his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, Chicago Tribune columnist Bill Kass begins:

After his latest stunt, who can doubt that former President Bill Clinton is the smartest, craftiest fellow in the history of American politics?

For months, most of America -- myself included -- has been avoiding a question of national importance. It's the big Bill question:

What do we call Bill should his wife, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Hsu), win the presidential election, allowing Bill to romp about the White House once again?

Clinton answered it on Oprah Winfrey's show.

He now wants to be called the First Laddie.

"My Scottish friends say I should be called 'First Laddie' because it's the closest thing to 'First Lady'," he joked with Winfrey on her program the other day.

Oprah, surprise, surprise, is backing U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Rezko/Daley.)

"I'm not so worried about what I'm called as what I'm called upon to do," said Clinton.

He's not the only one who's worried. I figure half the Democrats and most Republicans are worried, too. . . .

I don’t know about First Laddie. I’m still waiting for him to tell us what is is.

The rest of Kass's column is here.

Pricing Durham Suits

At newsobserver.com we read:

Three former Duke lacrosse players are asking the city of Durham for $30 million to stave off a civil suit, two media outlets reported today, citing unnamed sources. …

Barry Scheck, representing former player Reade Seligmann, and Brendan Sullivan Jr., representing David Evans and Collin Finnerty, seek $10 million for each of their clients, according to the reports. …

If Durham does decided to settle, $30 million would well outstrip the city's $5 million liability insurance policy. Taxpayers would be on the hook for the remaining $25 million. …

The entire article is here.

Now, folks, let’s do a little “suit pricing.” The “prices” won’t be exact, but they’ll give you a good idea of what these suits may cost.

Durham City has a population of a little more than 200,000.

Divide $1 million by 200, 000 and it comes to $5.00.

Multiply $5.00 by 25 and you get $125.00.

So if there was a $30 million settlement and the Durham taxpayers had to pick up $25 million of it, that would come to a cost of $125.00 for every man, woman and child in Durham.

For a family of 4, that’s $500.00.

But wait, there’s lots more.

If a 30 million settlement is reached and insurance picks up $5 million of that, the taxpayers may wind up paying a lot more than $25 million.

Why?

Well, for one thing, it’s not clear from the news reports whether the $30 million allegedly being requested includes the players’ attorneys’ fees. If it does not, the cost to taypayers could be much greater.

It’s certain Durham taxpayers will have to at least foot the bill for the city’s costs for negotiating and possibly defending the city employees – certain police officers, their supervisors, city manager Patrick Baker, and others – whose travesties and very possibly crimes made civil rights violation suits a very real possibility.

And remember this: the three young men Sullivan and Scheck represent aren’t the only victims grossly abused by Durham city employees. There will certainly be other suits.

Most of what the suits will be about concern matters, which, when they became publicly known, drew no scorn or demands for correction from Durham’s leaders.

On the contrary, our elected officials, our civic and religious leaders and Bob Ashley’s Durham Herald Sun either cheered Nifong and DPD on or turned their heads in craven silence.

Ashley has recently tried to direct public anger at the victims for exercising their right to seek compensation for the deliberate and monumental harms done them. If Durhamites follow Ashley’s lead, they’ll prove themselves suckers; and venal ones at that.

What Durham’s public needs to do now is start directing questions at our leaders.

For example, when the fraudulent April 4 lineup became public knowledge last year, why did not one city counsel member call for an immediate investigation of what attorneys, journalists such as Stuart Taylor, bloggers such as KC Johnson, and scholars such as Thomas Sowell and James Coleman were all saying was a fraud.

I'm sure you can think of many other questions.

And we all know there's much more to come on all of this.

Stay tuned. We're going to learn a lot we don't yet know.

Cheshire's Nifong Jest

With Mike Nifong going to jail this morning, I recalled something from the June 14 Durham Herald Sun’s account of testimony and releated events at his disbarment trial the previous day.:

[One of David Evans' defense attorneys , Brad Bannon,] criticized Nifong's inflammatory pre-trial statements. They included telling the news media that "one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong." ...

Fellow Evans attorney Joe Cheshire said if he were questioning the Durham prosecutor, he would ask, " 'Who are those two people sitting with you, Mr. Nifong?' He would answer, 'They're my lawyers.' "

Cheshire said he'd remind Nifong of that pre-trial remark about not needing an attorney when innocent and ask, "What is going on here?"

What Nifong did was terrible. I hope today isn't the only time he goes to jail.

But recalling Cheshire's jest, I can't help smiling.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 6, 2007

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

Here’s another anecdote from Dominique Enright’s The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill (O’Mara Books, 2001). As with any story which begins, “According to legend,” the usual cautions apply:

According to legend, during the late 1920s or early 1930s, at a time when Churchill was speaking out against those who argued that the League of Nations and the power of civilized negotiation would secure peace, and calling for greater expenditure on defense, he addressed the St. George Society.

His theme was how a contemporary St. George would save a maiden from the dragon.

“St George would be accompanied, not by a horse, but by a delegation. He would be armed not with a lance, but by a secretariat … he would propose a conference with the dragon – a Round Table conference – no doubt that would be more convenient for the dragons’s tail.

Then after making a trade agreement with the dragon, St. George would lend the dragon a lot of money.”

[Churchill] continued in this vein for a bit, until: “The [question of the] maiden’s release would be referred to the League of Nations of Geneva, and finally St. George would be photographed with the dragon.”

In fact, Churchill was for many years a supporter of the League of Nations. His principal disappointments were its failure to use international power to enforce its good intentions and its failure to face up to dictators bent on conquest. The two failures, of course, went hand-in-hand.

“At Duke, the Massacre of Innocence”

In today’s Wall Street Journal scholar and public intellectual Abigail Thernstrom, reviews Stuart Tayor and KC Johnson’s Until Proven Innocent.

A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Thernstrom has a deep respect for the traditions of civil discourse and truth-seeking which once served as the guide stars for our college and university faculties.

Her review, “At Duke, the Massacre of Innocence,” follows in full, after which I offer a few comments under the double star line.

Now Thernstrom - - - - -


Privileged, rowdy white jocks at an elite, Southern college, a poor, young black stripper, and an alleged rape: It was a juicy, made-for-the-media story of race, class and sex, and it was told and retold for months with a ferocious, moralistic intensity.

Reporters and pundits ripped into Duke University, the white race and the young lacrosse players at the center of the episode, and the local justice system quickly handed down indictments. But as Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson show in " Until Proven Innocent" -- and as the facts themselves would show when they finally came to light -- it was a false story, a toxic controversy built on lies and bad faith.

There was plenty of wrongdoing, of course, but it had very little to do with Duke's lacrosse players. It was perpetrated instead by a rogue district attorney determined to win re-election in a racially divided, town-gown city; ideologically driven reporters and their pseudo-expert sources; censorious faculty members driven by the imperatives of political correctness; a craven university president; and black community leaders seemingly ready to believe any charge of black victimization.

"Until Proven Innocent" is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions -- legal, educational and journalistic -- that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair -- the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline -- was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture's most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America's supposed racial divide.

A bit of college-age stupidity triggered the sequence of events. The co-captains of the Duke lacrosse team held a house party in Durham, N.C., on March 13, 2006, and hired two strippers from an escort service for the occasion. The women who showed up -- Crystal Mangum and Kim Roberts -- happened to be black.

It turned out that Ms. Mangum -- although the public would not learn of such details until very late in the life-span of the scandal -- had a serious alcohol and narcotics problem. She had been diagnosed as bipolar and had spent a week in the state mental hospital the previous summer.

Having arrived at the party late, she did not start dancing until midnight. Time-stamped photos show that her performance lasted only four minutes. By 12:30 she had passed out, as she often did -- it was later discovered -- at the Durham night club where she worked as an "exotic dancer."

The other dancer, Ms. Roberts, eventually drove her to a grocery store and asked for help, and the security guard there called the police, who assumed that Ms. Mangum was "passed-out drunk."

In the custody of police, Ms. Mangum said nothing about a rape. (Ms. Roberts called the rape charge a "crock" when she first heard of it, until District Attorney Michael Nifong bribed her to say otherwise by reducing a bondsman's fee -- from an earlier conviction -- by roughly $2,000.)

Ms. Mangum, fearing recommitment to a mental hospital, landed on rape as the explanation for her incoherent and generally woeful condition when she was prompted by a nurse-advocate at a mental-health processing facility. There was no medical evidence to substantiate the charge.

In a series of interviews with prosecutors, Ms. Mangum drew wildly different and implausible pictures of the alleged rape. DNA tests from swabs taken the night of the incident revealed that she had had recent sexual contact with as many as four men, none of whom were Duke lacrosse players. Defense lawyers discovered this damning detail only after combing through more than 1,800 pages of documents released by the district attorney months after the testing was done.

The DNA cover-up was only one of the procedural travesties that eventually cost Mr. Nifong his job and law license and (last week) earned him a one-day jail sentence.

In two photo-identification lineups, Ms. Mangum couldn't identify anyone as her rapist. On a third try -- before which Mr. Nifong announced to her that all the photos that she was about to see were of Duke lacrosse players -- she suddenly fingered three: David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

It was apparently of no consequence to Mr. Nifong that the lineup violated basic departmental rules and that none of the men she identified bore the slightest resemblance to the descriptions she had given police.

Time-stamped photos -- at the party and at an ATM -- along with cellphone and taxi records showed indisputably that Mr. Seligmann could not have participated in the 30-minute, three-orifice gang rape and vicious beating of which Ms. Mangum accused the three players.

Messrs. Evans and Finnerty did not have such air-tight alibis, but each cooperated fully with the police, even offering to take lie-detector tests, and there was not a shred of evidence against them.

The district attorney branded the defendants as "hooligans," but others -- like Messrs. Taylor and Johnson here -- described them in glowing terms, as earnest, hard-working students.

The state attorney general -- after an agonizing yearlong investigation, culminating in Mr. Nifong's removal from the case -- determined in April 2007 that Messrs. Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann were innocent of all charges. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- had happened at the party.

The players' innocence had been apparent to their own attorneys from the outset. It should have been apparent to Mr. Nifong, too, given all the exculpatory details he knew. But he was desperate to win a close primary election and needed black votes, so he proceeded with an unjustified prosecution and publicly vilified innocent young men.

In this fundamental injustice, he was aided and abetted by others in Durham. Richard Brodhead, the president of Duke, condemned the lacrosse players as if they had already been found guilty, demanded the resignation of their coach and studiously ignored the mounting evidence that Ms. Mangum's charge was false. He was clearly terrified of the racial and gender activists on his own faculty.

Houston Baker, a noted professor of English, called the lacrosse players "white, violent, drunken men veritably given license to rape," men who could "claim innocence . . . safe under the cover of silent whiteness."

Protesters on campus and in the city itself waved "castrate" banners, put up "wanted" posters and threatened the physical safety of the lacrosse players.

The vitriolic rhetoric of the faculty and Durham's "progressive" community -- including the local chapter of the NAACP -- helped to intensify the scandal and stoke the media fires.

The New York Times' coverage was particularly egregious, as Messrs. Taylor and Johnson vividly show. It ran dozens of prominent stories and "analysis" articles trying to plumb the pathologies of the lacrosse players and of a campus culture that allowed swaggering white males to prey on poor, defenseless young black women.

As one shrewd Times alumnus later wrote: "You couldn't invent a story so precisely tuned to the outrage frequency of the modern, metropolitan, bienpensant journalist." Such Nifong allies -- unlike the district attorney himself -- paid no price for their shocking indifference to the truth.
_________________________

Thernstrom liked the book, didn’t she? That’s a great recommendation. She’s a tough-minded person with high standards.

Sure, Until Proven Innocent speaks to her concerns about the erosion of the Academy’s traditional values and the growing disregard for the rights of certain groups at the expense of other groups carrying PC “seals of approval.”

But unless Thernstrom thought the book was well-done and made a compelling case, it wouldn’t have received such praise.

I think the key paragraph in Thernstrom’s review is this one:

"Until Proven Innocent" is a stunning book. It recounts the Duke lacrosse case in fascinating detail and offers, along the way, a damning portrait of the institutions -- legal, educational and journalistic -- that do so much to shape contemporary American culture. Messrs. Taylor and Johnson make it clear that the Duke affair -- the rabid prosecution, the skewed commentary, the distorted media storyline -- was not some odd, outlier incident but the product of an elite culture's most treasured assumptions about American life, not least about America's supposed racial divide.

There are a few errors in the review. Nifong didn't tell Mangum the ID lineup was stacked. He told the cops to do the stacking, and they told Mangum what they'd done. Also, Mangum picked four players, not three.

Final comment: Thernstrom called Houston Baker "a noted professor of English." Instead of "noted," I wish she'd said "notorious."

The NC AG in Durham?

Durham Herald Sun’s reported :

Durham County Interim District Attorney Jim Hardin has asked state officials to determine whether current or former government officials should face criminal prosecution over their handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

The request was confirmed Wednesday by Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Potential targets include anyone who acted "under the color of law enforcement," meaning former District Attorney Mike Nifong and an array of people in the Durham Police Department.

I’ve already posted once tonight on the H-S story here.

That post was all reporting.

Now, some brief commentary with more to follow tomorrow - - -

I obviously don’t know whether NC Attorney General Roy Cooper will agree to launch a criminal investigation.

I think it’s likely he will, but there may be one or more law or procedure-based reason(s) why his office would not.

Regardless of which way the AG decides, what makes tonight’s story so important is this: Hardin’s request helps “push” the investigation of criminal activity during the Duke lacrosse “investigation” away from Durham “authorities” such as city manager Patrick Baker, who praised what Nifong and Durham police did during the Duke lacrosse “investigation.”

If AG Cooper says, “My office agrees with Hardin’s request. We’ll take the case,” then you have the same investigative office looking into criminal activity that looked into Nifong and DPD’s “investigation” and declared the players “innocent” and found Nifong to be “a rogue prosecutor.”

I don’t have any problem with an investigation of criminal activity in the case going from Hardin’s office to Cooper’s.

If, on the other hand, Cooper feels he has to say, “No,” what do we have?

We have a situation where there are possible civil rights suits pending. They’d be filed by some of the best known attorneys in the country. What’s more, the situation involves a former DA who’s been disbarred and found guilty of criminal contempt; and a current interim DA who’s just asked the state to step in and launch a criminal investigation into the conduct of the disgraced DA and others.

If the state has to pass on Hardin’s request, what he’s done, and the circumstances that led him to do it, has surely added to the pressure on the Feds to come to Durham.

So whichever way Cooper decides, Hardin’s request today moves us further down the road to understanding what was done in an attempt to frame three innocent young men as well as what has been done, and is still being done, in an ongoing conspiracy to cover-up the frame-up.

I’m sure even Durham’s city manager, Patrick Baker, himself an attorney, will tell you that, provided you catch him in an honest moment.

But if you plan on doing that, be quick.

Moving on –

I know many of you think attorneys Scheck and Sullivan coming to Durham today on behalf of the young man some people here worked hard to frame while our city’s leaders looked on may have had something to do with Hardin’s request.

Well, so do I.

But that doesn’t change anything else I said in this post.

It's a big step forward that Hardin, who recommended Nifong to succeed him as DA, today recommended the state AG launch a criminal investigation of Nifong and others acting under “color of law?”

Let’s all stay at it. There much more that needs to be done.

The Churchill Series – Sept. 5, 2007

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

I think it’s been a year or more since I used Dominique Enright’s The Wicked Wit of Winston Churchill (Michael O’Mara Books, 2001). The book has much to recommend it, but it doesn’t cite sources. And it frankly tells the readers that certain of its Churchill stories are “generally attributed to him” and “according to one telling of the incident.”

So, Readers, beware!

With that caution in mind, here’s an anecdote that sounds just like Our Man:

A few years before the outbreak of the First World War, Churchill was at a diplomatic reception. An Italian military attaché asked a Luxembourgeois diplomat about a medal he was wearing. “It’s an ancient order called the Royal Admiralty Cross,” the diplomat replied stiffly.

After he had stalked off, the Italian turned to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, and remarked how odd it was that Luxembourg should have this when it did not even have a navy.

“Why shouldn’t they have an admiralty?” Churchill answered cheerfully. “You in Italy, after all, have a minister of finance – yet you don’t have a treasury!”(p. 118)

Smile when you can. Churchill always did.

Durham DA Asks State Investigation

The Durham Herald Sun is reporting tonight:

Durham County Interim District Attorney Jim Hardin has asked state officials to determine whether current or former government officials should face criminal prosecution over their handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

The request was confirmed Wednesday by Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for state Attorney General Roy Cooper.

Potential targets include anyone who acted "under the color of law enforcement," meaning former District Attorney Mike Nifong and an array of people in the Durham Police Department.

Hardin's request surfaced Wednesday, as attorneys for exonerated lacrosse players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann were meeting with Durham officials to discuss a potential federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.

The three players were indicted last year on what Cooper eventually ruled were false charges of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping.

The subsequent fallout has included Nifong's disbarment, resignation and last week conviction on a charge of criminal contempt, all stemming from his attempts to hide exculpatory evidence from the players' defense team.

North Carolina law authorizes only a sitting DA, a sheriff, police officers or judges to request an investigation by State Bureau of Investigation.

Cooper's office is reviewing Hardin's request, said Talley.

Talley couldn't say who was reviewing the request or when the review might be completed.

Hardin said it would be inappropriate for him to comment.

Folks, you know this story is huge. I’ll comment later tonight and again tomorrow.

For now a little info about “color of law” ---

From Law.Com dictionary:

color of law

n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists.

An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration.

It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

And this from the FBI’s Miami-based Civil Rights Program website [excerpt]

An official would violate the color of law statute by fabricating evidence against or conducting a false arrest of an individual. That person's rights of due process and unreasonable seizure have been violated.

In the case of deprivation of property, the official would violate the color of saw statute by unlawfully obtaining or maintaining the property of another.

In that case, the official has overstepped or misapplied his authority. […]

At the Miami FBI site we also find this:

The public entrusts its law enforcement officials with protecting the community. If it is shown that an official willfully failed to keep an individual from harm that official could be in violation of the color of law statute.

As the public considers what might happen as a result of interim DA Hardin’s request, we here in Durham can recall that our City Manager, Patrick Baker, has always praised our police force for its handling of the Duke lacrosse case.

Baker is an attorney.

The entire H-S story is here.

More later.

There’s a War Going On

A while back Democratic presidential nominee candidate John Edwards chided President Bush for using what Edwards said was a “bumper sticker slogan:” War on Terror

Now this just off the AP wire:

Three suspected Islamic terrorists from an al-Qaida-influenced group nursing "profound hatred of U.S. citizens" were arrested on suspicious of plotting imminent, massive bomb attacks on U.S. facilities in Germany, prosecutors said Wednesday.

A senior State Department official said German investigators had determined the Frankfurt International Airport and the nearby U.S. Ramstein Air Base were the primary targets of the plot but that those arrested may have also been considering strikes on other sites, particularly facilities associated with the United States.

It was the second time in as many days that European officials said they had thwarted a major attack, following the arrest by Danish authorities on Tuesday of eight alleged Islamic militants with links to senior al-Qaida terrorists.

It also comes less than a week before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

German Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said the three suspects, two of whom were German converts to Islam, had trained at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, a group based in Central Asia. They had obtained some 1,500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide for making explosives.

"We were able to succeed in recognizing and preventing the most serious and massive bombings," Harms told reporters. She declined to name specific targets, but said the suspects had an eye on institutions and establishments frequented by Americans in Germany, including discos, pubs and airports […]

Edwards should stick to the things he knows: haircuts and building himself and his family a 28, 000 sq. ft. house.

There’s a War on Terror going on even if many Dems, liberals and leftists won't admit it.

It’s a war that has to be fought and won unless we want to lose Western Civilization of which America is the leading defender.

The entire AP story is here.

“Democracy & Journalists:” Nothing So Far

Back on August 22 I sent American Journalism Review editor Rem Rieder an email. A copy of that email is included in the post below which I first published on August 22.

As you may recall if you read the email then or as you’ll see if you read it now, I promised Rieder I’d publish his response in full.

I also promised to keep you informed.

So far I’ve heard nothing back from Rieder. I’m about to send him the email you find following the double starline at the end of this post.

Let’s hope we get a response this time.

John
*************************************************

Democracy & Journalists - August 22, 2007

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

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


Dear Editor Rieder:

This is a follow-up to the email I sent you August 22. You’ll find it in this link:

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/09/democracy-journalists-nothing-so-far.html

I understand my email concerns matters that must be painful to you both as an editor and as someone who frequently lecturers on journalism ethicists.

But I believe you’ll agree your professional position and concern with journalism ethics enables you to respond to the contents of the email in a way that illustrates for readers how a journalist can strengthen democracy by correcting errors.

I renew my offer to publish your response in full at my blog.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series – Sept. 4, 2007

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

Readers Note: Over the weekends I received emails from a few people who learned about this series when they “found” old series posts. I’d be curious to know if those folks are looking in today. All they need do is leave a brief comment at the end of this post.

Thanks.

John
___________________________________

In Martin Gilbert’s Churchill and America (Free Press, 2005) we read:

In the summer of 1938, when [ American financier and unofficial presidential advisor] Barnard Baruch visited Chartwell, he brought encouraging news with regard to the European crisis.

Churchill passed this on to Clementine. “The President is breast-high on our side and will do everything in his power to help, “ he wrote. In addition, “Baruch admitted opinion in the States had never yet been so friendly to us.”

There was, however, a limit to what the United States would do. “It is a great pity matters cannot be carried further now.”

Churchill added: “Apparently, you always have to have a disaster before anything sensible can be done which would prevent it.”(p. 166)

The European crisis Gilbert mentions was, of course, Hitler’s demand that a portion of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, be handed over to Germany. On September 29, 1938, Britain agreed at the Munich Conference to Hitler’s demand.

In the months and years before Munich very little that Churchill then and history now would recognize as sensible was done to stop Hitler.

Churchill’s letter to Clemetine was written July 5, 1938.

The excerpts you’re just read begin Chapter 17 of Churchill and America. Gilbert titled the chapter: Road to War.

Taylor/KC on GMA Today

I missed Stuart Taylor & KC Johnson’s appearance on Good Morning America today but thanks to a lead from Macd at Liestoppers forum I viewed the interview tape here (it’s in the upper right hand corner).

If you missed the interview live, I hope you view the tape.

Here are three interview quotes followed by my comments in italics.

KC on why he got interested in the case:

“I had no connection to Duke. I didn’t even know Duke had a lacrosse team. But even before there were indictments – well before there were indictments – 88 professors at Duke came out with a public statement saying unequivocally something happened to the accuser; and thanking protestors who had carried a “CASTRATE” banner.

This was such an extraordinary betrayal of what professors are supposed to do. They’re supposed to stand up for due process. They’re supposed to stand up for the dispassionate evaluation of evidence.

And what we had here were professors who were exploiting their own students' difficulties for their own agenda.”

KC’s bang on. He could have added that to date Duke’s President, Richard H. Brodhead, has said nothing critical of the 88 professors.

For that matter, Brodhead’s never said anything critical of those who rallied under the “CASTRATE” banner or of others who a few days later circulated copies of the infamous “Vigilante” poster targeting white Duke students. That was done within sight of Brodhead’s office windows.

As a summary question, the interviewer asked: “What is the lesson here?"

KC responded:

“This was the highest profile case of prosecutorial misconduct to unfold before our eyes in American history.

Groups that we think of as defenders of due process and opponents of this kind of behavior – liberals in the media, leftists in the academy, civil rights organizations – especially in North Carolina – not only didn’t protest against Mike Nifong’s behavior, they gleefully embraced it."

I reacted to KC's statement with a “yes” and a “no.”

Yes, it’s depressing that so many of the people who identify with such groups and most of the groups which fall within those categories embraced Nifong and what he was doing. It’s also a wake-up call for any of us wishing to preserve democracy in America.

But no, I don’t think of the groups KC mentions as defenders of due process and opponents of the kind of prosecutorial conduct Nifong manifested; at least not when such prosecutorial conduct fits their agendas. And an awful lot of American’s don’t, either.

Who really expected the liberal media to give the Duke lacrosse players fair treatment?

The thing that really surprised fair-minded people when they began to learn the truth was not that the players hadn't gotten fair treatment from most of the media, but just how far almost all the liberal media had gone in distorting the truth, attacking the players and encouraging Nifong and the DPD investigative travesty. That's another wake-up call.

As for what we call “civil rights organizations” - the NAACP, Jesse Jackson’s PUSH and the like – they're really special interest advocacy groups. Did anyone expect them to look out for the civil rights of white males?

Stuart Taylor at the very end of the interview referring to David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, said:

We got to know these kids and their families very well. They are wonderful kids.

I doubt Brodhead, Nifong and the Group of 88 know that even now.

_____________________________________________________

Again, in you missed Taylor and Johnson this morning you can catch them here (upper right hand corner).

Also, on the same page you can read the first chapter of Until Proven Innocent.

Pick the Duke Prof

Below are excerpts from two quite different statements which two African American scholars made last Spring in response to what was then called the “Duke lacrosse rape scandal.”

Your job is to pick which of the two scholars was a Duke Prof at the time the statements were made.

Once you’re read the excerpts and made your selection, I’ll identify the then Duke Prof and tell you a little about each scholar.

Scholar 1 excerpt:

Prosecutors are not just supposed to prosecute. They are supposed to prosecute the right people in the right way. In this case, prosecutor Michael Nifong has proceeded in the wrong way. ….

A lineup should include not only people suspected of a crime but also other people, so that it tests whether the accuser or witness can tell the difference, and is therefore credible.

But the stripper who claimed to have been raped by members of the Duke lacrosse team was presented with a lineup consisting exclusively of photographs of members of the lacrosse team.

In other words, whoever she picked out had to be a lacrosse player and would be targeted, with no test whatever of her credibility, because there was no chance for her to pick out somebody who had no connection with the team or the university. …

When a prosecutor acts like he has made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts, that is when the spirit of the lynch mob has entered the legal system.

When this happens on the eve of an election for the prosecutor, it looks even uglier.

Thank you, Scholar 1.

Now, are you ready for the Scholar 2 excerpt? OK, here’s goes:

[In] a forthrightly ethical setting with an avowed commitment to life-enhancing citizenship, such a violent and irresponsible group [as the lacrosse team] would scarcely be spirited away, or sheltered under the protection of pious sentiments such as "deplorable" - a judgment that reminds us of Miss Ophelia in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, saying that slavery was "perfectly horrible." …

The lacrosse team - 15 of whom have faced misdemeanor charges for drunken misbehavior in the past three years - may well feel they can claim innocence and sport their disgraced jerseys on campus, safe under the cover of silent whiteness.

But where is the black woman who their violence and raucous witness injured for life? Will she ever sleep well again? …

The shame of this is unconscionable. ...

Ready to pick the Duke Prof? Scholar 1 or Scholar 2?

Before you make your pick, here are a few facts which may help you.

The Duke Prof was heavily recruited by Duke with, among other inducements, a promise of tenure and an endowed professorship. His wife was also “recruited” by Duke and given a position on its faculty.

Now, whom did you pick?

Scholar 1? Sorry, you’re wrong.

Scholar I is Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. One of America’s most respected free market economic theorists, Sowell is the author of over thirty books. In 2002 he was awarded the National Humanities Medal. Previous recipients include author John Updike, oceanographer Robert Ballard and historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

The correct answer is Scholar 2: Houston Baker.

At the time Baker expressed his concern as to whether Crystal Mangum would “ever sleep well again,” she was pole dancing at the Platinum Club and he was George D. and Susan Fox Beischer Professor of English at Duke.

Baker has since moved on to Vanderbilt University, which recruited him from Duke. I don't know whether Mangum still works at the Platinum or has been recruited away by another club.

You can read more about Baker in this article in which the distinguished arts critic and biographer Terry Teachout says [excerpt]:

To be sure, Houston Baker, Jr., is no worse than the rest of his fellow literary-theory racketeers. He commits no literary offenses that cannot be found in a hundred other equally stupid books published by a hundred other professors of other colors. …

[But if] the author of Black Studies, Rap, and the Academy is truly representative of the best black studies has to offer, then it necessarily follows that black studies is a joke, a pitiful and preposterous burlesque of scholarship foisted on the academy in the holy name of diversity. …

Read the whole thing as they say.

And if you’re a Dukie, don’t forget to drop Vandy a thank you note.

“Durham's Silence Is Sickening”

Remember Raleigh N&O new columnist Ruth Sheehan’s “Team’s Silence Is Sickening” column which began:

Members of the Duke men's lacrosse team: You know.

We know you know

Well, a JinC Regular, Locomotive Breath, has parodied Sheehan’s column after reading the "Attorney Alex Charns Interview" post in which Charns noted Durham City’s more than year-long “silence” in the face of investigative travesties by DPD officers and their supervisors has put the city in the worst possible position as it faces legal action by Duke students who are victims of those travesties.

If you haven't read Sheehan's column recently, you may want to. It will add to the fun of reading LB's parody.


Here’s LB’s parody: “Durham’s Silence Is Sickening.”

Employees of the Durham City Government: You know.

We know you know.

Whatever happened in the Courthouse and City Hall gone terribly bad, you know who was involved. Every one of you does.

And one of you needs to come forward and tell the public.

Do not be afraid of retribution from the insurance company. Do not be persuaded that somehow this "happened" to one or more "good guys."

Since what the lax team says is true -- that civil rights were denied, trampled on, hidden and buried -- the employees responsible are not "good."

This seems an elementary statement, I know.

But I can see loyal government employees sitting around convincing themselves that it would be disloyal to turn on their fellow employees -- why, the employees who were involved were just a little "over the top." In real life, they're funny. They ignore their work for months to be with their mothers. They share investigation notes with co-workers. They sing gospel.

On this case, they were just a little too power mad, a little too "worked up." It was a scene straight out of "L.A. Confidential" by James Ellroy. Indicative of the times.

The courtroom death threats slung at the defendants, who were lacrosse players? Those were just ... jokes. Ditto for the ugly remarks overheard in the DA's office: "We're f**ked." Har, har.

After all, these people are not just employees, but trusted professionals. The municipal dream.

And the police? They were... just doing their job, for Pete's sake.

I can see the city going down this path, justifying its silence. And it makes me sick.

Because, of all the occupational hazards that must come with government service, one of them should be personal responsibility. And no, trolling on the internet for MILF doesn't make it better.

Unfortunately, because the people are employees at such a fine municipality, there is a tendency to presume that this was an aberration. That these employees are "good guys."

I see it in the references to the "Serpico" atmosphere allowed to flourish at the police station.

I sense it in the "dismay" expressed by Mayor Bell over the "situation" -- the hiring of C. Destine Couch and the (shocking!) serving of NTOs to an entire lacrosse team.

But NTOs are one thing. The implication that this event, is somehow just a normal case that "got out of hand" is just plain wrong.

Railroading is not part of a spectrum of professional duty, the regrettable end game when publicity and votes are ignited by a larger pension and fanned into flames with the activists’ permission.

No. Railroading is a crime. A very serious one.

Those who commit it are criminals, not "good guys."

I don't know what happened in that Courthouse, and in that DA's office, over in Durham. Ultimately, that will be a matter for the Federal courts to decide. But who was in that cabal is something the public needs to know. Now.

They shouldn't have to wait for the Whichard Committee to be restarted.

Every employee of the Durham Courthouse and City Hall knows who was involved.

Until the city employees come forward with that information, forfeiting a false rape prosecution isn't enough.

Shut down the city.
__________________________________________________________

Thank you, Locomotive Breath

I was wrong about Judge Stephens

Last May I posted “Why I admire the Duke lacrosse judge.”

I told readers I’d testified a number times as an expert witness in Judge Ron Stephens’ court and knew him slightly outside of court from chance meetings at social and youth sports events. I said why I thought he was a fine judge.

He had, of course, by that time made some decisions many of you believed then as now were wrong. Signing the request for the NTO, setting bail at $400,000 per individual, and refusing Kirk Osborn’s request that the then impending trial of Reade Seligmann by moved up are some that come to mind.

I was aware of them. I was also aware that attorneys I respect said each of Stephens’ decisions could be argued to be reasonable and consistent with customary judicial practice.

That said, I’m responsible for what I thought then and think now.

I’ve come to realize I was wrong about Judge Stephens’ ability to be an impartial judge in the Hoax case. Even allowing for some pro-prosecutor bias that’s common among judges, Stephens over time revealed himself to be so biased in Nifong’s favor that he should have recused himself from the case early on. And I should have realized that.

If I could call that May 2006 post back, I would. The best I can do now is put an “UPDATE” following the title and a few sentences at the head, linking to this post.

In the next few weeks I may post in more detail abut how I got it wrong on Stephens, but this is not the time for that.

This is the time to say I apologize to any of you I misled.

It’s also the time to say “thank you” to many of you whose informed comments here and at other forums last May and since have helped me realize my error.

John