N&O’s Video Story Without a Video Link Follow-up

Saturday I published Raleigh N&O Fl. 1549 video story doesn’t link to video.

The short of it: newsoberver.com ran an AP story which began:

”A newly released security camera tape shows the emergency ditching of North Carolina-bound US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in all its stunning drama - from seconds after the jetliner splashed into the frigid water until well after the last of the 155 passengers and crew members were rescued.”

There followed a lengthy text description but the N&O failed to link to the tape or even a segment of it.

I compared the N&O’s failure to link to any portion of the video with the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s posting of the same story which included photos and a link to a video segment.

McClatchy Watch picked up on my post and twice featured it in its own posts. (See here and here)

Today in this post I want to share with you an email I’m sending N&O public editor Ted Vaden and another email I’m sending to McClatchy Watch asking how I can respond to commenters there, particularly some apparently “professional journalists,” who didn’t see any problem with what the N&O did.

Some even suggested because the N&O was running an AP story it had no choice but to run whatever the AP sent it.

The email to the N&O’s Ted Vaden

Dear Ted:

Re: Raleigh N&O Fl. 1549 video story doesn’t link to video.

If you open the post you’ll see it raises questions about why the N&O would run a story of a new Fl. 1549 video “in all its stunning drama” without at least including a link to the video or a segment thereof, as you can see the Minneapolis Star Tribune did. (I link to it in my post)

I think many N&O readers felt as one reader said on the thread:

[K]inda strange to read an article about a tape of this event without the tape being linked or embedded in the article. Sorta like being served t-bone steak with no meat on the bone.

Why did the N&O run the story and fail, as the Strib did, to provide a link to at least a segment of the video?

When I Googled Saturday morning, I immediately found dozens of sites hosting segments.

I’ve a second question: While the Strib story is still up, the N&O’s story appears to be 404’d.

Was it 404’d; and, if so, why?

As always, I will publish your response in full at JinC.

Thank you for your attention to this email.

Sincerely,

John

_____________________________________________

Email to McClatchy Watch - - -

Thank you for both your on point comments and links to my post: Raleigh N&O Fl. 1549 video story doesn’t link to video.

I’ve read those posts' two lengthy comment threads. Many of the comments are informed; some comments fall in the “children’s bathroom talk” category; and some comments appear to come, in at least some cases, from journalists who assert they’re fine with the N&O treatment of the Fl. 1549 video story.

Indeed some of those “just fine” commenters say there was no other way for the N&O to handle what was an AP story despite my including in the post a link to the Strib’s quite different treatment of the same AP story.

I’ve no desire to get involved with the “children’s bathroom talk” commenters.

But I do want to express appreciation to the informed commenters and question those commenters who think the N&O treatment of the story was “just fine” and had to be that way because it was from the AP.

But I want to be respectful as one blogger who wants to make some fairly extensive comments at another bloggers blog. (btw – an outstanding one)

Any guidance you can offer me is welcome. If you prefer I let the matters go, I can accept that with no problem.

It’s your call.

I’m enclosing a link to a post which contains this email as well as one I sent the N&O public editor Ted Vaden.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Rangel Ethics Probe: Will Pelosi Set New Deadline?

The New York Post reports - - -

Nobody's home at the House ethics committee that's supposed to be investigating Rep. Charles Rangel.

The panel created on Sept. 24 to probe the Harlem Democrat's alleged ethical lapses has been virtually disbanded, after meeting only twice in four months on the matter, The Post has learned.

Of the four congressmen named to look into the powerful Ways and Means Committee chairman, only one remains - Alabama Republican Jo Bonner. The three others left the Rangel probe last month when they were "rotated" off the 10-member Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

The dormant investigation won't be jump-started until three incoming ethics committee members are assigned to the Rangel probe later this month.

Because the committee conducts its work in secret, it is not clear if any progress has been made on the Rangel investigation.

In the committee's recently released 100-page report on its work in the 110th Congress, only four paragraphs mention the Rangel probe, listing five alleged ethics breaches and noting that the panel had not been able to complete the investigation.

The panel has already missed Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Jan. 3 deadline for filing a final report on Rangel.

The rest of the Post’s story’s here.

The Post’s story doesn’t mention reports Speaker Pelosi plans to give the ethics committee a new deadline to complete its Rangel investigation no later then the end of the current century.

Rangel's attorneys have reportedly already agreed to the new deadline.

Hat tip: BN

U. S. Attorney Subpoenas Blago- Obama Sr. Staffers Contact Materials

Readers Alert: This post was originally titled:"U. S. Attorney Subpoenas Obama Sr. Staffers. Where’s MSM?"

Subsequently commenter ttj on the post thread below said: To be clear, what the original report says is that Blagojevich was served subpoenas requesting information on contacts with these people. The Obama people have not yet been served subpoenas. Not yet...

I checked at Director Blue where I found the following: Update II: An eagle-eyed commenter points out that Blago's communications with Axelrod, Jarrett, et. al. were the subject of subpoenas, not the parties themselves. So noted and corrected.

I've changed both the title of the post and the text content which I've copied from Director Blue and reflects the correction he made.

My thanks to ttj for pointing out the error and my apologies to those of you who were misinformed.

John

_____________________________________

From Director Blue - - -

On Saturday morning, the list of subpoenas served by the U.S. Attorney's office in the Governor Rod Blagojevich case was made public. The list included one major surprise for the new administration.

A veritable "who's who" of Obama staffers, surrogates and affiliates were among those whose communications with Blago were served with subpoenas. Put simply, within one week of President Barack Obama's administration taking office, it is already under significant legal scrutiny that will -- at a minimum -- take precious time away from dealing with the country's monumental economic and foreign policy challenges.

And, once again, the mainstream media is AWOL, unwilling to report on this very newsworthy story.

Among those whose communications were served:

David Axelrod, Obama's "Karl Rove" and the biggest surprise on the list. Obama's team issued a report in December that said his staff had no "inappropriate contact" with Blago, so the inclusion of Axelrod is a bit of a shock.

Valerie Jarrett, Blago's "Senate Candidate 1", a real estate management executive and political hack of the first order. Her ties to failed and fraudulent real estate deals in Chicago were the subject of numerous investigations and should have instantly disqualified her for any public office.

Rahm Emanuel was already deeply involved in the case with some reports describing as many as 21 conversations with Blago's office during the period in question.

Tony Rezko, Obama's first advocate, fundraiser and adviser, was convicted last year on numerous charges related to kickbacks, and is now awaiting sentencing. Rezko is "cooperating with authorities, FBI Agent Daniel Cain said in an affidavit." ...

The rest of Director Blue's post is here.

Hat tip: Mike Williams

Caroline Kennedy’s Senate Bid: Dec. 6 to Now

On Dec. 6 I posted Caroline Kennedy New York’s next Senator? It included the following from a NY Times story that day:

Caroline Kennedy, a daughter of America’s most storied political family who for many years fiercely guarded her privacy, is considering whether to pursue the Senate seat expected to be vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton early next year, a family member said Friday.

“I believe that she is considering it,” said her cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spoken to Ms. Kennedy about the matter during the past week. “A lot of people the last couple of weeks have urged her to do it.”

Ms. Kennedy called Gov. David A. Paterson on Wednesday to discuss the position, Mr. Paterson confirmed Friday. The governor will choose a replacement for Mrs. Clinton upon her expected confirmation as secretary of state next month.

“The conversation was informational,” Mr. Paterson said. “She did not express an interest in the Senate, but we talked about the Senate, so I got that she was just trying to get some information to determine whether or not she would like to have an interest in it. And that was it.”

He added, “I haven’t offered the job to anyone.”

Ms. Kennedy, 51, a lawyer who lives in Manhattan, could not be reached on Friday.

Despite Gov. Paterson's caution, it looked to many on Dec. 6 like we were in for another episode of The Camelot Myth, a joint production of Kennedy family pr advisers and fawning media and academic flacks. The Camelot Myth has run continuously since 1961.

But by Dec. 28 I was posting Are Caroline Kennedy’s Chances Weakening? The Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart had listed 5 mistakes Kennedy and her supporters had made; and I added 2 more.

Commenter cks has made detailed, incisive comments noting both why Kennedy might secure the nomination (mostly the power of her name, her wealth and her reputed fund raising ability) and her many shortcomings. Here’s part of one cks comment that gets at the shortcomings:

… Thus, given the Kennedy financial resources (and ability to drum up money) one can see the allure for Paterson to elevate Kennedy to the position.

However, having the money is one thing, possessing political ability is quite another - something that Ms. Kennedy has not (so far) shown.

She has effectively used the Camelot myth (though how much of that was massaged by her Uncle Ted is an interesting question) to help Obama win the election. Though she was a member of his V-P vetting team, one has to question just how much she contributed to that effort. …

She has shown that she is quite inarticulate and has been unable or unwilling to state her positions.

Finally, for someone who considers public service and involvement in politics her family's legacy, how can she get around the fact that she has failed to vote in numerous elections? Was she unaware that elections were going on?

Right in line with cks’s comment was a column by the NY Daily News’ Mike Goodwin which began:

[A] strange thing is happening on the way to the coronation. The wheels of the bandwagon are coming off. Fantasy is giving way to inescapable truth.

That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her.

Her quest is becoming a cringe-inducing experience, as painful to watch as it must be to endure. ...

You’ll find a link to Goodwin’s column in my post: If you love Caroline Kennedy.

Given all the anger, contradictory explanations and scurrilous attacks spewing back and forth today between people, mostly anonymous, MSM identifies as members of either the Kennedy and Paterson camps (but not, it should be acknowledged, from Caroline herself) this Anon comment made days ago was prescient: (12/28/08)

I wonder how mawkish Ellen Goodman and other Lefty columnists will get over Kennedy's non-anointment as Senator from Camelot.

"Oh, what might have been if some Kennedy magic dust were spread across the Empire State!" …

So why didn’t the magic dust … spread across the Empire State?

Some reasons bordering on slander are being whispered about. I don’t care to touch them.

And a lot of what we're hearing and reading is just political bafflegab from people who don't know acting as if they did.

But reports that NY's Senior Sen. Chuck Schumer’s unhappiness with being “footman” to “Princess Caroline” helped upend Kennedy's chances should be checked out for many reasons.

Tarheel Hawkeye notes some of them:

The real mystery in the Schumer/Gillibrand saga is why Schumer (who obviously thinks anyone okayed by the NRA is the Devil incarnate) is supporting Gillibrand (who is not only approved by the NRA, but actually believes and accepts the entire Bill of Rights).

To say there's something fishy doesn't quite catch the import of this. There is no greater enemy of the Second Amendment than Schumer; his alignment with Gillibrand begs more inquiries.

Will he get her into the Senate, then cut her legs out from under her when she is challenged by another gun-hating Democrat? To what end?
The plot thickens.

Any upstate New Yorkers out there care to comment?

I hope some do; and I hope many of you will, too.

Final word to No MoDo: I promised to comment and link to you’re blog in this post.

I’m sorry I couldn’t work it in without this already long post getting longer.

But I will as promised respond tomorrow.

Wind and Power Blowhards

I can’t recall when I last read an editorial on a serious subject – clean energy – that was both so informative and so filled with sharp, amusing political satire.

Here, in its entirety, from yesterday’s WSJ is “Blowhards:”

The fabulous debate over wind power on Nantucket Sound.

For all the hype about the Bush Administration's oil-and-gas energy bias, one of its last official acts was to give the go-ahead to what could be America's first offshore wind farm -- thus enraging more than a few self-deputized environmentalists. Such are the ironies of the wilderness of mirrors known as the Cape Wind project.

For the last seven years and counting, the green entrepreneur Jim Gordon has been trying to build a fleet of wind turbines in federal waters near the upscale seascapes of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket.

The site seemed ideal, given the stiff ocean breezes and the eco-friendly politics in Massachusetts. The company says its 130 towers could meet 75% of the region's electricity needs and reduce carbon emissions by some 734,000 tons every year.

The sort of people who can afford to use "summer" as a verb are in favor of all that. Completely in favor, really. But they did want to raise one quibble.

Unfortunately, the wind farm would create "visual pollution" in Nantucket Sound, particularly the parts within sight of their beachfront vacation homes.

Mr. Gordon went ahead anyway, and the opposition rose to gale force. Supposedly the wind farm will lead to everything from the disruption of seabird habitats to "desecrating ancient American Native burial sites," in the words of Glenn Wattley, the head of an antiwind outfit funded by the likes of Bunny Mellon.

But what really upsets these well-to-do Don Quixotes is the thought of looking at windmills that would appear about as tall on the horizon as the thumbnail at the end of your outstretched arm.

Then there is the political saga, with the Kennedy family as the Hyannis Port Sopranos, supplying the muscle. While Ted Kennedy was castigating President Bush for destroying the environment, the Senator was working furiously behind the Congressional scenes to kill Cape Wind. He even had the inspiration of getting former GOP colleague Ted Stevens of Alaska to slip wording into a spending bill that would have handed a veto to then-Governor Mitt Romney, another aesthetically minded opponent.

Robert Kennedy Jr., a Time magazine "hero of the planet," tried to get the Sound designated as a national marine sanctuary to bar development.

Incredibly enough, this political sabotage has so far failed. And last week the Interior Department issued its long-awaited regulatory study, mostly finding "negligible" environmental impact -- apart from a "moderate" impact on the scenery.

If the Obama Administration signs off, construction could begin next year.

Mr. Kennedy blustered that the report was rushed out: amusing, considering it runs to 2,800 pages.

Bill Delahunt, the windy Cape Democrat, also denounced the action as "a $2 billion project that depends on significant taxpayer subsidies while potentially doubling power costs for the region."

Good to see the Congressman now recognizes the limitations of green tech, such as its tendency to boost consumer electricity prices -- but his makeover as taxpayer champion is a bit belated.

Green energy has been on the subsidy take for years, including in 2005 when Mr. Delahunt was calling for "an Apollo project for alternative energy sources, for hybrid engines, for biodiesel, for wind and solar and everything else." The reality is that all such projects are only commercially viable because of political patronage.

Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf ran the numbers and found that the effective tax rate for wind is minus-163.8%. In other words, every dollar a wind firm spends is subsidized to the tune of 64 cents from the government. The Energy Information Administration estimates that wind receives $23.37 in government benefits per megawatt hour -- compared to, say, 44 cents for coal.

Despite these taxpayer crutches, wind only provides a little under 1% of U.S. net electric generation.

We'd prefer an energy policy that allows markets to shape the sources that predominate -- which would almost certainly put Cape Wind out of business. But President Obama seems determined to unload even more subsidies on green developers as he seeks to boost renewables to 10% of the U.S. electricity mix by the end of his first term and 25% by 2025; their share today is about 9% (5.8% of which is hydropower).

We wouldn't be surprised to see the President's green future wrestled to the ground by the likes of Mr. Delahunt, the Kennedys and other anticarbon Democrats.

Environmentalists love the idea of milking Mother Nature for power, but they hate the hardware needed to make it work: huge windmills, acres of solar panels, high-voltage transmission lines to connect them to the places where people live.

Of course, they still totally, absolutely, wholeheartedly support green energy -- as long as it gets built where someone else goes yachting.

A few very recent Caroline Kennedy articles

There are so many out in MSM-land, it's hard to pick just a few.

But here are links to and brief comments about four very recent articles I found interesting for reasons serious and/or frivolous.

Arthur Sulzberger’s NY Times provides a touching 1958 picture of then Sen. John Kennedy and his baby daughter Caroline in a bassinet looking lovingly at each other. It's followed by the headline and story: “A Fumbled Handoff of the Torch “

As the picture and headline suggest, the story plays on Camelot memories and fails to seriously examine the implosion of Kennedy's bid to be named New York's next U. S. Senator.

The AP's running a number of Kennedy stories offering differing explanations for Kennedy's failed bid including: "Schumer the unseen hand in NY Senate choice"

This is a story political junkies will love. Senator Schumer will too, since: a) he loves media attention focused on his importance; and b) this story makes him seem a “kingmaker.” ( I really should have said “queenmaker,” but all of you except the trolls will forgive me, I think)

Politico offers "Analyzing Caroline"

Politco's Ben Smith links to a New Yorker Kennedy profile he says is outstanding. I’ve not yet read it.

Smith's story includes New Yorker profile quotes from Kennedy supporter Laurence O’Donnell zinging Gov. Paterson.

And then there's the NY Times’ Maureen Dowd’s column: “Which Governor Is Wackier?”

If you know Dowd, you know right away the two Governors she’s talking about are Blago and Paterson.

Blago because even Maureen Dowd's smart enough to know he's wacky.

And Paterson because Dowd worships at the Court of Camelot’s Kings and Queens, Lords and Ladies.

Whatever – you know – the rest of us might think, Dowd really believes if Paterson had just appointed Caroline:

"Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York — Bobby’s niece and a smart, policy-oriented, civic-minded woman to whom the president feels deeply indebted in an era when every state has its hand out."

Ah, the magic glow Camelot still casts on some.

I’ll post again late Sunday afternoon on the Kennedy story at which time I'll more fully thank than here now those of you who’ve commented or given me heads ups on the story since it began playing out in mid-December .

Look for the post by 5 PM ET.

Ex-Guantanamo Inmates In New Al-Qaeda Video

Agence France-Presse reports - - -

Two men released from the US "war on terror" prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have appeared in a video posted on a jihadist website, the SITE monitoring service reported.

One of the two former inmates, a Saudi man identified as Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, or prisoner number 372, has been elevated to the senior ranks of Al-Qaeda in Yemen, a US counter-terrorism official told AFP.

Three other men appear in the video, including Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi, identified as an Al-Qaeda field commander. SITE later said he was prisoner No. 333…

The rest of the AFP story is here.

**************************************************************
My comments:

AFP doesn’t ID SITE beyond terming it a “monitoring service.”

Here’s more about SITE from its Web site:

Studying the primary source propaganda, training manuals, and chatter of terrorists offers insight into terrorists and their activities that can not be obtained anywhere else. Failing to monitor terrorist propaganda is a failure in intelligence.

To fulfill this need, the SITE Intelligence Group offers its Monitoring Service, which provides numerous daily translations of terrorist propaganda and multimedia from primary source terrorist websites.

While most of SITE’s work is available on a subscription only basis, you can read a list of titles of some of their articles, translations and reports here.

When I read AFP’s story, I thought two things:

1) It was predictable.

2) A lot of Dems, Liberals and Leftists (yes, lots of overlap there) had to work very hard pressuring the Bush administration to release Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, Abu al-Hareth Muhammad al-Oufi and others like them.

If you’re happy Abu 372 and Abu 333 are now “back at work,” remember to thank the people who helped free them.

Raleigh N&O’s Flight 1549 video story doesn’t link to video

Can you believe it?

The McClatchy Company’s Raleigh News & Observer runs a story, “Tape shows NC-bound plane's Hudson River landing,” which begins:

A newly released security camera tape shows the emergency ditching of North Carolina-bound US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River in all its stunning drama - from seconds after the jetliner splashed into the frigid water until well after the last of the 155 passengers and crew members were rescued. …

But the N&O doesn’t link to the video or even a segment of it.

One reader commented:

…[K]inda strange to read an article about a tape of this event without the tape being linked or embedded in the article. Sorta like being served t-bone steak with no meat on the bone…

The Minneapolis Star Tribune, a former McClatchy paper, did include a link to a video segment with its story of the Con Edison tape. (See below small photo of plane at right of text)

At the head of the Strib’s story is a dramatic photo I’d not seen before. The camera's looking straight down the plane nose to tail with passengers on the wings and in the emergency chutes. No rescue boats are visable.

The photo can be enlarged and is worth a look.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 23, 2009

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

I’m an admirer of William Manchester’s two volume Churchill biography: The Last Lion and Alone. I regret a stroke prevented Manchester from completing his planned third and final volume of the biography.

But there are some things Manchester says about Churchill that just aren’t true. Here's one example from Alone in which Manchester asserts:

As a man who reached his majority in 1895, when Victorian gentlemen never use the words “breast” or “leg” if ladies were present, he assumes that they are innocents who must be shielded from the brutal facts of life and that feminine beauty is unaccompanied by carnal desire.” (p. 17)

Churchill understood from youth the Victorian convention of avoiding references to sex in front of women was just that: a social convention.

And he also knew that many women enjoyed sex. One of them was his mother; another was his wife.

When Churchill was away Clementine would often end her letters to him reminding him to come home at the first opportunity because “your ‘Cat’ needs stroking” and “I so want to purr with you.”

If you haven't yet made its acquaintance, I urge you to read Speaking for Themselves: The Personnel Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill, edited by their daughter, Lady Mary Soames. (Black Swan, 1999)

I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.

John

SEC Probes Whether Duke BOT Chair Misled Investors

Reuters reports - - -

U.S. regulators are probing former Wachovia Corp Chief Executive Robert Steel over comments he made on television about his bank the day before it started talks about a potential merger, the Wall Street Journal reported late on Friday.

Citing people familiar with the matter, the paper said the Securities and Exchange Commission has been probing whether Steel, a former Treasury Department official, misled investors in an appearance on CNBC's Mad Money show during the height of the financial panic last September.

"In an extremely challenging and volatile time, Mr. Steel always did his best to convey the position of Wachovia accurately. Should any questions arise, he is very comfortable addressing them," the Journal quoted a spokesman for Steel as saying, adding that the SEC declined to comment.

Wachovia shareholders approved the bank's takeover by rival Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) in late December, bringing one of the largest mergers stemming from the financial crisis near to completion.

Well Fargo could not be immediately reached for comment.

The SEC wants to ascertain whether Steel misled investors when he told CNBC's "Mad Money" program on Monday, September 15, that the company had a great future "as an independent company," as panic about the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers roiled markets, the paper reported.

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

My comments:

If Steel, chair of Duke University’s board of trustees, misled investors that won’t surprise people familiar with the Duke lacrosse hoax, frame-up attempt and their ongoing cover-up.

Since March 2006 when a false accuser told self-contradicting lies about a gang rape and other crimes that never happened, Steel’s been misleading the Duke community and the broader public.

With Duke’s President Richard H. Brodhead, Steel put in place Duke’s disgraceful “throw the students under the bus” strategy which has stained the university’s reputation and embroiled it in multiple lawsuits, including one with one of its insurers.

Hat tip: An Anon commenter

But NPR, CNN, MSNBC and the networks are OK

The NY Post reports - - -

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts. …

The rest of the Post’s story’s here.

Full disclosure: Nowhere in the story does it say President Obama told Republicans it was OK for them to listen to NPR, CNN, MSNBC and the networks.

But don’t you think it’s safe to say The One’s OK with GOPers listening to any of them?

If he’s not, I’ll issue a retraction provided that’s OK with our historic first president ever to tell members of the opposite party they shouldn’t listen to Rush Limbaugh if they want to “get things done.”

Hat tip: Drudge Report

While You Wait For Obama to Release Them

You can read in the International Herald Tribune:

"Guantánamo detainee resurfaces in terrorist group”

Who’s surprised?


It’s like reading:

"Rangel, Dodd, and Frank resurface in sleaze probe”

Only the Dems don't want to kill us.

They just want our money.


Hat tip: Drudge Report

More re: "Duke’s Chronicle Ignores Insurer's Charges"

Ken in Dallas has followed the Duke/Durham case closely. He commented re: Duke’s Chronicle Ignores Insurer's Charges.

Parts of Ken’s comments are in italics; my responses are in plain.

Ken said - - -

While I agree the Chronicle could have been more forthcoming in its article, there are often claims (and counterclaims) made in court filings. Some are true. Some are without merit. I think we need to be careful here.

You’re right about a need to be careful here and the merit or lack thereof of claims and counter claims made by parties to a lawsuit

That said, The Chronicle should've told readers National Union, in its response, charged Duke, in its suit filing, with making claims against NU which NU said were “knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.” (See this JinC post)

NU knows it will have to argue those charges and convince the court.

NU could have said Duke’s claims were “unfounded.” It chose to say they were “deliberately unfounded.” (emphasis added)

“Malicious,” according to this legal dictionary, means: An act done maliciously is one that is wrongful and performed willfully or intentionally, and without legal justification.

In Duke's Chronicle Ignores Insurer's Charges I should have noted that according to the same legal dictionary referenced above, “in bad faith” means: The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation.

And from the dictionary's discussion:

Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can make an honest mistake about one's own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith.

The existence of bad faith can minimize or nullify any claims that a person alleges in a lawsuit. Punitive Damages, attorney's fees, or both, may be awarded to a party who must defend himself or herself in an action brought in bad faith (emphasis added)

NU made its "bad faith" charge in a section of its response in which it asked that Duke compensate it for attorneys’ fees and other expenses it incurs in connection with the suit.

Having said that, Duke's well documented violation of federal FERPA laws should have been noted. The student body needs to know that its personal information is not being kept private. Now that I think about it, perhaps that should be a separate story in the Chronicle.

Ken, in this paragraph I score you hitting two “over the fence.”

1) Attorney’s tell me if Duke violated FERPA laws and regulation in the first place with the release of confidential student information to Nifong and DPD, that would be extremely serious and some of those at Duke engaged in the release might well be subject to criminal charges.

If having violated FERPA laws and regulations, Duke then joined with Nifong in an elaborate deception which included lying during proceedings in Judge Titus’ court, that would be, as one attorney put it: “arsenic for Duke.”

2) The student body and parents need and deserve to know whether personal information was kept private. I’ll bet you find it very disturbing that neither Duke’s trustees or their president, Dick Brodhead, has denied the allegations and assured the Duke community that nothing like what is alleged ever happened.

Thanks for your most recent thoughtful comment and for the many that have preceded it.

John

The Churchill Series - Jan. 22, 2009

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

Many historians consider Carlo d’Este’s Decision in Normandy the finest account of that June through August 1944 campaign.

Here d’Este describes the relationship between Churchill and the commander of Allied ground forces in the Normandy campaign, Britain’s General (later Field Marshal) Bernard Law Montgomery.

In Montgomery, Churchill had at last found a general who won battles, the most professional soldier, in fact, that he had ever encountered: a tough, blunt, no-nonsense commander with tenacious qualities, and a near-obsession with winning the war. It was of little consequence to Churchill that he was often high-handed, arrogant and difficult to handle, perhaps because these same qualities could just as well describe the Prime Minister himself.

For his part, while Montgomery deeply respected Churchill as a great statesman he was never afraid of him; he was respectful and admiring but, as he was to prove on several occasions, he never hesitated to say ‘no’ to his Prime Minister when he believed he was meddling in a general’s business – and managed to escape the wrath which traditionally followed a confrontation with the strong-willed Churchill.

____________________________________
Carlo d'Este, Decision in Normandy. (p. 46)

Duke’s Chronicle Ignores Insurer’s Charges

Yesterday, Jan. 21, The Chronicle published its first and to date only story reporting the response of National Union Fire Insurance, Co.(NU) to a lawsuit Duke University (along with DU Health System) filed in November.

Duke alleges NU is responsible for certain costs associated with lawsuits resulting from Duke’s actions and inactions in connection with the Duke lacrosse case.

The Chronicle’s story quoted Michael Schoenfeld, Duke’s vice president for public affairs and government relations, who said Duke “can't say much … and the legal system will determine what is owed to Duke."

The story also provided some background to Duke’s suit and reported a NU spokesperson had not “immediately” responded to a request for comment.

But TC’s story said nothing about the extraordinarily serious charges NU made in its response. For example, that Duke had, in its suit filing, made claims against NU which were “knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.” (See this JinC post)

TC also said nothing about a February 2008 letter concerning which KC Johnson reported:

National Union informed Duke that some of the lacrosse players’ claims—if true—involved actions by University officials beyond topics covered by the insurance policy.

The letter cited items such as allegations of “false and misleading statements made with intent to conceal”; “public statements made with deliberate indifference and callous disregard for the truth”; and “repeated proffer of false testimony.” (On this point, allegations regarding Duke’s violation of FERPA seem especially troublesome for the University.)

The carrier also noted that other alleged actions seemed to involve the defendants’ personal behavior (Pres. Brodhead’s public musings about the lacrosse players’ personal character?) rather than any action in their official capacity. …

NU's allegations are not ones the Allen Building wants bruited about.

But they're an extraordinarily important part of the NU-response-to-Duke’s-suit story.

By deciding to say nothing about them, The Chronicle failed its readers.

TC owes readers a follow-up story that details what NU is saying about Duke’s actions and inactions during one of the most important episodes in the university’s history.

The entire TC story’s here.

Comment re: "Manmade global warming" losing public support

Responding to "Manmade global warming" losing public support,

Anon @ 7:11 said - - -

It is stunning to me that the global warming/climate change cult is largely left wing. These are the same people who ridicule fundamentalist Christians who take issue with the theory of evolution. The lefties can't imagine that anyone would believe that species have not changed over time.

Yet, the global warming cultists insist that variations in climate and temperature are unprecedented -- that things on earth were always the same for eons until the bad humans came along and discovered fossil fuels.

The fundamentalists used to tell me that dinosaur bones and fossils and carbon dating were the tools of Satan, used to sow doubt that the world was a few thousand years old.

I wonder if the marine fossils found far from the NC coast (that prove that the seas were once much higher) or evidence of Greenland once being green are the work of evil "deniers" hired by Exxon Mobil to con us into believing that climate and temperatures have varied over time.

***********************************************************
I can think of only two things to add:

1) Amen!

2) Thank you, Anon.

Hat Tipping “the Editors”

If you know a “bloggers have no editors” MSM journalist, please send them this post.

Thanks go to Ken in Dallas who within about 30 minutes of its publication, noted I’d reversed a set of links which I promptly got right.

Thanks to Tarheel Hawkeye who noted a link carried not to a spoof Obama weather report but a promo. I couldn’t find the spoof, so I took down the post.

Thanks to a journalist friend who offline incorrectly referenced the Minneapolis Star Tribune as a “McClatchy paper,” something it once was but hasn’t been since McClatchy sold it a few years ago.

My friend’s reference was incidental to a longer post. His rereading what he wrote and emailing back a few hours later to correct what was really a small mistake is the kind of thing most of us wish more journos would do.

No justice, no peace has commented often at a number of blogs on the Duke/Durham hoax and frame attempt as well as the ongoing cover-up they’ve spawned.

Recently here and at another blog nj,np misidentified two people, each with the other.

Before anyone could point out nj,np’s errors, nj, np was posting at both blogs calling attention to his/her errors and providing readers the proper information.

It was all done promptly, fully and with prominence equal to the original erroneous posts.

Our democracy would be so much better off if most journalists and bloggers did as nj, np did and as some journalists and bloggers do.

Many of you do “the editor’s work” of putting me on to breaking stories. Thank you.

A final “thank you” to all of you who add to JinC with your “editorial” comments and questions.

John

The Churchill Series - Jan. 21, 2009

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

One day in 1899 twenty-four year old Winston Churchill, by then already a war veteran, published author, and a keen student of politics, visited Conservative Party headquarters in London. A distant relative and minor party functionary, Fitz Roy Stewart, had, at Churchill’s request, arranged for him to meet party leaders.

Now if you’re telling yourself, “I’ll bet the meeting had something to do with Churchill wanting party support for a seat in Parliament,” you’re right.

Party Manager Middleton, nicknamed “The Skipper,” assured Churchill the party would find a suitable opportunity for him.

We know all this because in 1930 Churchill, then age fifty-five, told us about it in My Early Life, his account of his first twenty-seven years.

And we know something else about his visit to Conservative Party headquarters because, with tongue-in-check and a wink to readers, Churchill told us what happened as he was leaving party headquarters:

On the way out I had another talk with Fitz Roy Stewart. My eye lighted upon a large book on his table on the cover of which was a label bearing the inscription “SPEAKERS WANTED.”

I gazed upon this with wonder. Fancy that! Speakers were wanted and there was a bulky book of applications.

Now I had always wanted to make a speech; but I had never on any occasion great or small been invited or indeed allowed to do so. …

So I said to Fitz Roy Stewart, “Tell me about this. Do you mean to say there are a lot of meetings which want speakers?”

“Yes,” he replied; “the Skipper told me I was not to let you go without getting something out of you. Can’t I book you for one?”

I was deeply agitated. On the one hand I felt immense eagerness; on the other the keenest apprehension. However, in life’s steeplechase one must always jump the fences when they come.

Regaining such composure as I could and assuming an indifference contrary to my feelings, I replied that perhaps if all conditions were suitable and there was a real desire to hear me, I might be willing to accede to his request.

He opened the book.

It's wonderful to know people, especially famous people, who can poke fun at themselves and invite others to share in the fun.
________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, My Early Years. Eland, published London, 2002 (pgs. 199-201)

Reports: Caroline withdraws; statement to come tonight

NY papers are reporting Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration to fill the Senate seat vacated today when Hillary Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State.

A NY Times story begins - - -


Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision.

On Wednesday she called Gov. David A. Paterson, who will choose a successor to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her concerns about Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s deteriorating health (he was hospitalized after suffering a seizure during President Obama’s inaugural lunch on Tuesday ) prompted her decision to withdraw, this person said.

Coping with her uncle’s condition was her most important priority, a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job.

Ms. Kennedy believed that the job was hers if she would accept it, the person said.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Paterson had no immediate comment.

Ms. Kennedy was planning to issue a statement on Wednesday evening.

The rest of the Times' story's here.

I'll await a statement from Kennedy before saying more.

Hat tips: cks & GPrestonian

NY Times’ Franken-Coleman Story Favors Franken

Here’s a story ("Another Round in the Coleman-Franken Stand-Off”) the NY Times just posted. My comments highlighting its bias favoring Franken follow below the star line

The NYT begins - - -

Outside the Capitol on Tuesday, Al Franken sported a thick Russian-style winter hat as he settled in to watch the inauguration of Barack Obama. Inside the Capitol, there is still no office with his name on it.

That didn’t stop Mr. Franken, the Democrat and entertainer, from circulating a statement that hinted at the prospect of “working together” with the newly sworn-in president.

“Like so many others, I have been inspired by our new president to look towards the future with optimism, and with the knowledge that there is nothing we can’t accomplish together,” he said.

Mr. Franken’s own future, however, is in the hands of a three-judge panel in Minnesota that will hear arguments on Wednesday from both sides in the election contest filed by former Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, who trailed at the conclusion of a statewide recount. Their first order of business will be to consider the Franken campaign’s argument that the contest should be thrown out before a trial begins.

If the judges disagree, the trial phase is expected to begin on Monday and the panel will weigh Mr. Coleman’s contention that the recount process was flawed and the results should be invalidated against Mr. Franken’s claim that the election is over. At the end of the recount Mr. Franken led by 225 votes.

The Democrat’s lawyers have been arguing that his certificate of election should be signed by the governor and secretary of state in Minnesota immediately, a move that would pave the way for seating Mr. Franken in the United States Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, said on Wednesday that he would be monitoring the deliberations of the panel and raised the possibility of provisionally seating Mr. Franken.

“There is no way that Coleman can win this,” Mr. Reid said. “The numbers just aren’t there. He should concede.”

But Mr. Coleman, who relinquished his Senate seat earlier this month, expressed confidence that the panel would eventually rule in his favor.

“I certainly wish that I was ahead in votes rather than behind right now,” he told a local television station on Tuesday. “But I believe in the end we’ll be where we were on Election Night — that I will be ahead.”

And, by the way, Mr. Coleman offered his own words of congratulations for President Barack Obama too.

“Watching Barack Obama be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States will forever be etched into the minds of so many of us as one of those moments for which you remember where you were and what you were doing when it happened,” Mr. Coleman said in a statement yesterday.
***************************************************************

My comments:

The story’s most egregious bias involves Sen. Harry Reid, the only person besides the two principals mentioned by name and the only person besides Franken and Coleman who’s quoted.

Reid, never ID’ed as a Dem, is allowed to say there’s “no why that Coleman can win this[.] The numbers just aren’t there.”

Readers are left to wonder whether the Times asked Reid for his evidence the “numbers just aren’t there” or just went along with its fellow Dem.

Coleman, Reid says, “should concede.”

Reid’s certainly entitled to his opinion, just as he was entitled to his opinion the Senate shouldn’t seat Illinois’ new Senator Burris.

But why does the Times quote only Reid on concession?"

There are thousands of informed people who believe Coleman shouldn’t concede.

Since the Times story was allegedly a report focused on a federal court hearing in Minnesota which was scheduled days ago, the Times can’t use “deadline” as an excuse for not including in its story the opinion of an expert who doesn’t agree with the Franken-Times position.

There’s more I could say, but the Times’ bias must be obvious to all fair-minded, intelligent people.

Final word: As is well-known and was reported again today by the Minnesota Star Tribune "[Coleman] contends there were widespread irregularities, including the improper rejection of absentee ballots from Republican-leaning areas and double-counting of ballots in DFL areas."

Is anyone surprised the Times' story left that out?

U. N. affiliated “rights worker” busted for child porn. Says it’s “research.”

Blogger Jammie WearingFool gives us the “stunning” news “not all these U, N. officials are as reputable as they claim to be.”

JWF links to a NY Daily News story which begins - - -

A high-ranking human rights worker with ties to the United Nations was nabbed at Kennedy Airport Tuesday with kiddie porn in his suitcase, officials said.

Clarence Dias, 65, president of the International Center for Law in Development, whose offices are located at the UN, had the smut in his carry-on bag as he passed through security on his way to a flight bound for Bangkok, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

Transportation Security Administration officials doing a random bag check around 8:20a.m. allegedly found a DVD whose cover featured an apparently underage nude boy and an adult male in Dias' handbag, prosecutors said.

The video's title - "Winner Pub Pattaya" - apparently refers to a beach resort in Thailand, authorities said. There were also other lewd photographs in the bag, authorities said.

Dias - who holds a doctorate in law from Bombay University and Cornell Law School and has taught at Boston College of Law - claimed the porn was for research, authorities said. …

The rest of JWF's post's here.

****************************************************
My Comments:

Only “for research?”

Now why didn’t President Clinton think of that?

“I know people will find this hard to believe – I actually find it hard to believe myself – but I was only trying to find out what pizza would taste like with an intern under the desk.”

“I needed to know that in order to complete my research report due the following Monday to the U. N. Human Rights Commission.”

Folks, check in often JamieWearingFool. It’s a great blog, and not just because it the 2008 winner of Weblogs best large blog award.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Brokaw Ridiculed Wheelchair-bound Cheney. And What About Clinton?

Democrat and NBC newscaster Tom Brokaw couldn’t resist ridiculing outgoing Vice-president Dick Cheney yesterday. Many of you no doubt heard it.

Here’s how Media Research Center reported it with my comments below the star line -

As Dick Cheney was literally rolled out of office, in a wheelchair due to a packing accident, Tom Brokaw had one final kick out the door for the Vice President as he compared him to "Dr. Strangelove," the mad scientist title character from the film of the same name.

During NBC News' live coverage of Tuesday's inaugural ceremonies Brokaw made the following observation of Cheney as he was being ushered towards Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony at about 11:32am EST:

"It's unfortunate for Vice President Cheney to have had this accident obviously, because there will be those who don't like him, who will be writing tomorrow that he had a Dr. Strangelove appearance as he appeared today in his wheelchair."

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

My comments:

Brokaw's kick at Cheney got me thinking of what Browkaw would say on air when he saw former President Clinton.

I knew there wasn’t a chance it would be something like:

"It’s unfortunate for former President Clinton that he’ll be attending the official luncheon following the swearing in, because there’ll be those who when they hear about that will think of the times he used to have pizza lunches in the Oval Office with ‘that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,’”

The Churchill Series - Jan. 20, 2009

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

Below is an amusing note Churchill wrote Clementine.

Twenty-eight Hyde Park Gate was at the time their London home. G.H.Q. stands for General Headquarters. The note’s punctuation is as it appears in a published copy.
____________________

15 June 1948

Darling

You did promise Sept 12 1908 ‘To Love, Honour, & Obey.”

NOW herewith are Orders

5:15 You come up here to rest. E.Y.H. [car registration letters] will bring you & is waiting

7:30 Dinner

8:30 Journey to 28 [Hyde Park Gate]

9:40 Bed & a read

Given at Chartwell G.H.Q.

The Tyrant
___________________________

Clementine and Churchill had pet names for each other. Hers were Cat and Kit; his were Pug and Pig.

The Tyrant sketched a pig below his Orders.

The note can be found on page 549 of Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston And Clementine Churchill, which their daughter, Lady Mary Soames, edited.

N&O Public Editor Blames Jews For “Information Blockade”

McClatchy’s Raleigh News & Observer public editor Ted Vaden, a self-described “readers’ advocate,” recently had this to say about the N&O’s coverage of Israel’s response to years of Hamas’ terrorist rocket attacks on its civilian population:

… But I do think the [N&O’s] coverage did not adequately convey the extent of suffering and pain inflicted on ordinary [Gaza] citizens.

That's in some measure because the Israelis have banned foreign reporters from entering Gaza. To get the Palestinian side, reporters have had to content themselves with phone interviews from outside Gaza to Palestinian health authorities and other officials. (all emphasis added)

Dion Nissenbaum, McClatchy's Jerusalem correspondent, gives a good account of the Israeli information blockade on his blog, at the McClatchy Web site, www.McClatchydc.com.

"In essence, Israel has transformed the entire Gaza Strip into a closed military zone," he writes. "Reporters from every major news organization, from the BBC and CNN to The New York Times and The Washington Post to NPR and McClatchy to AP and Fox News, are being barred by Israel from going into Gaza to cover the deadliest military campaign there since Israel seized the area from Egypt in the 1967 war." …

Vaden leaves N&O readers in no doubt as to whose fault it is foreign correspondents aren’t in Gaza.

Vaden blames the Jews.

But take a look at a portion of my Jan. 12 Press access to Gaza questions post which was a response to the liberal/leftist anti-Israel press:

... Gaza has a border with Egypt.

And this Jan. 11 report by IRIN, a self-described “UN humanitarian news and information service,” says the Egyptian controlled border crossing at Rafah is open 3 hours every day.

So why isn’t the foreign press entering Gaza via Egypt?

The lengthy Jan. 6 NYT story I linked to above complains about Israel closing the border. But it says nothing about crossing access from Egypt.

That silence is typical of almost all MSM stories I’ve read reporting on news organizations' difficulties gaining access to Gaza.

However, in the fifth paragraph of a Dec. 30 Guardian story reporting on Israel’s actions I did find one sentence concerning Egypt and press access to Gaza:

Egypt has largely kept its one crossing into Gaza, at Rafah, closed except for in rare medical emergencies, and it too does not allow journalists to cross.

Questions:

Why do major news organizations like the BBC, Reuters and the NYT say so little about the Egyptians denying them access to Gaza?

Why, in almost all their stories, do they blame only the Jews for restricting foreign press access to Gaza?

And why does McClatchy’s Raleigh N&O public editor Ted Vaden do the same thing?

Vaden's entire column's here.

Congratulations and good wishes to President Obama

Today, in the words of President Kennedy on his Inauguration Day, we observe "not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom."

Congratulations and all good wishes to President Obama on his Inauguration Day.

May God bless and guide him as he leads America in the years to come.

And congratulations to all his supporters.

John

“Manmade global warming” losing public support

Rasmussen reports - - -

Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.

In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.

The rest of Rasmussen’s report is here.

**********************************************************
My comments:

These two sentences caught my eye:

Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats.

Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.

So Rasmussen finds a majority of “not affiliated” voters agree with "[t]wo-thirds of GOP voters" that “planetary trends” and not humans are responsible for global warming.

MSM often tells us “conservatives” reject manmade global warming claims. But how often do MSM news orgs tell us a majority of unaffiliated or independent voters also reject those claims?

I can't ever recall liberal/leftist news orgs such as NPR and the BBC telling us majorities of Republicans and independents both reject manmade global warming claims while only a majority of Al Gore’s fellow Dems embrace them.

Can you?

Hat tip: Instapundit

Insurer: Duke’s “allegations … knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.”

Yesterday KC Johnson posted "Duke's $5M Defense?" which began:

National Union, the insurance company sued by Duke, has filed its response — and the brief makes for interesting reading.

It sure does, as you know if you’ve already read the rest of KC’s post.

If you haven’t, don’t miss it.

After reading National Union’s response (h/t to KC for providing link)I want to add a few comments to what KC says.

First, in the response in which Plaintiffs are Duke University (“Duke”) and Duke University Health System, Inc. (“DUHS”) and National Union is the Defendant, you’ll find on pg. 37:

FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Attorneys Fees)

65. The allegations contained in Paragraphs I through 64 of this Counterclaim are realleged and incorporated herein by reference.

66. Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint that Defendant's conduct violated N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq, and constituted violations of the provisions N.C.G.S. §§ 58-63-10 and 58-63-15, are knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith. (emphasis added)

67. Defendant is entitled to recover its costs and its reasonable attorneys fees expended in this action pursuant to the provisions of N.e.G.S. § 75-16.1.

National Union (NU) could not have used stronger, more damning language to describe Duke and DUHS than calling their actions “knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.”

Charging Duke and DUHS with making “knowingly unfounded” claims is, to take one instance, the same as saying they lied to NU.

NU would not have used the language it did unless it had a great deal of data to support its charges and was confident it could convince the court Duke and DUHS acted in ways that will confirm its charges.

Second, KC notes:

[In a letter dated March 30, 2006] Duke elected to forward to [National Union] “all that is publicly known about the situation at this time.”

But the University knew that at least some of this “publicly known” information—most notably, the claim that the lacrosse players hadn’t cooperated with police, and instead had erected a “wall of silence”—was false.

It’s not clear why Duke would have chosen to pass along information that University officials knew was false, even if that information had appeared in the local and national press.

I’ll venture an opinion as to “why Duke would’ve chosen to pass along information that University officials knew was false, even if that information had appeared in the local and national press.”

Here’s what NU says in its response (bot. pg. 25, top pg. 26):

7. On March 30, 2006 Duke mailed a letter with attached articles to National Union (“the March 30, 2006 letter”). A true copy of the articles attached by Duke to the March 30, 2006 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The March 30, 2006 letter references the 2006 Policy and states as follows:

Please accept this letter and attached documentation as notification of an incident only as required by the policy conditions under the referenced policy. No claim has been made against Duke at this time. Rather than repeat the alleged circumstances, I have attached a number of newspaper articles that summarize all thas is publicly known about the situation at this time.

What the March 30, 2006 Duke and DUHS letter did was use the dodge of “Rather than repeat the alleged circumstances” to avoid telling NU anything they knew about the case that hadn’t yet been reported publicly.

For example, what Duke learned and very likely agreed to on March 29, 2006, at a meeting Duke VP Aaron Graves and DUPD Director Robert Dean attended with the Durham City Manager, DPD’s Police Chief and Deputy Police Chief, a DPD Attorney, and the two principal DPD investigating officers, Sgt. Gottlieb and Inv. Himan.

I’m sure many of you can think of much else Duke knew March 30, 2006 which wasn’t then public knowledge; and which it made sure not to tell NU by using the dodge of sending press clippings and remaining silent about everything else it knew.

No wonder NU is convinced Duke treated it in ways “knowingly unfounded, malicious, frivolous, and in bad faith.”

Liestoppers has posted on the NU response and included links to it.

Both Liestoppers Meeting here and KC’s post thread have interesting comments concerning NU and Duke. I hope you give them a look.

The Durham Herald Sun's Ray Gronberg reports on the NU response here.

I couldn't find anything about the NU response story in either the Raleigh N&O's print edition or online site; nor could I find anything about it at The Chronicle's site.

The Churhill Series - Jan. 19, 2009

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

In 1930, Churchill turned 56. He also published My Early Life which covered the period from his birth in 1874 to his entry into Parliament in 1902.

Here's most of the first paragraph from My Early Life, broken into shorter paragraphs for readers' ease :

When does one first begin to remember. When do the waving lights and shadows of dawning consciousness cast their print upon the mind of a child?

My earliest memories are Ireland. I can recall scenes and events in Ireland quite well, and sometimes dimly, even people. Yet I was born on November 30, 1874, and I left Ireland early in the year 1879.

My father has gone to Ireland as secretary to his father, the Duke of Marlborough, appointed Lord-Lieutenant by Mr. Disraeli in 1876.
...
We lived in a house called "The Little Lodge."
,,,
I remember my grandfather, the Viceroy, unveiling the Lord Gough statue in 1878. A great black crowd, scarlet soldiers on horseback, strings pulling away a brown shiny sheet, the old Duke, the formidable grandpapa, talking loudly to the crowd.

I recall even a phrase he used: "and with a withering volley he shattered the enemy's line." I quite understood that he was speaking about war and fighting and that a "volley" meant what the black-coated soldiers (Riflemen) used to do with loud bangs so often in the Phoenix Park where I was taken for my morning walks.

This, I think, is my first coherent memory.

As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.
_________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, My Early Life. (p. 1)

Ayers Refused Entry Into Canada

The Toronto Star reports - - -

An American education professor, one of the founders of a radical 1960s group known as the Weather Underground, which was responsible for a number of bombings in the United States in the early 1970s, was turned back at the Canadian border last night.

Dr. William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago and a leader in educational reform, was scheduled to speak at the Centre for Urban Schooling at University of Toronto's Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. But that appearance has now been temporarily cancelled.

"I don't know why I was turned back," Ayers said in an interview this morning from Chicago. "I got off the plane like everyone else and I was asked to come over to the other side. The border guards reviewed some stuff and said I wasn't going to be allowed into Canada. To me it seems quite bureaucratic and not at all interesting ... If it were me I would have let me in. I couldn't possibly be a threat to Canada."

The rest of the TS’s story’s here.

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

My comments:

Of course, with Ayers in charge, he’d have let himself into Canada.

The man’s always thought himself someone special, as in: “It’s up to me to bomb buildings and kill innocent people.”

One comfort Ayers has: The Toronto Star treated him with such respect. It was as if the NY Times or NPR was reporting the story.

Another comfort: Ayers will soon be allowed into Canada and can use this episode to play the martyr and hype his books.

Hat tip: AC

Dr. King Predicting America Would Elect a "Negro President"

The BBC has found a video of a 1964 interview with Dr. Martin Luther King.

In this one-minute snip, King talks about American's compliance with recent Civil Rights laws and speculates on America electing "a Negro President."

Take a look.

The One "Weather Report"

post has been removed.

I can't get the link to work.

I'll update later.

Thank you, Tarheel Hawkeye, for alerting me.

John

NY Post: Caroline “Certain” Senate Pick

The NY Post's reporting - - -

DESPITE claims that he's still undecided, Gov. Paterson is "certain" to pick Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US Senate, several unhappy contenders for the job have told friends and associates in recent days.

The contenders based their conclusion on the view that Paterson, after nearly two months of indecision, would "greatly embarrass" and "entirely humiliate" Kennedy, anger her prominent political family and even offend President-elect Barack Obama by picking someone other than President John F. Kennedy's daughter.

As for the governor's claim to be weighing a last-minute finalist, the contenders agree with a close Paterson friend who said, "It's clear David is just trying to play mind games with the press." …

The rest of the Post’s story’s here.

It goes on to report a number of other reasons why political players say Kennedy has a lock of the Senate selection.

But the Post’s story fails to mention one of, if not the most important, indicators Kennedy would get the nod. And we’ve known about it for weeks.

I posted about it on Jan. 3 in Write Off Caroline’s Chances? I vote “No.”

The post quoted from this CBS News story:

… The good news for Kennedy is that, as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD exclusively on Wednesday, he's changed his mind and is now willing to support her. Silver had been the biggest thorn in Kennedy's side, constantly criticizing her credentials for the Senate position. But now, he's singing a different tune.

"She's obviously very bright and has been around politics her whole life," Silver said….

My comments included this call:

…If I had to bet today, I’d bet Kennedy gets the nod.

When “power hitters" like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver do a 180 turn, it tells you which way the wind’s blowing.

That wasn't a hard call, was it?