No snow in New York but

From the NY Sun today:

This month is set to become the first January in 75 years that New York City has been without any measurable snowfall, according to the National Weather Service.

Less than one-tenth of an inch has fallen in a month that usually produces more than eight inches of snow in the city, according to the National Weather Service.

So how did that happen?

The Sun continues:

The phenomenon can be traced to the lack of offshore storms, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, Joseph Pollina, said.

"We've had a number of systems move up the East Coast in not a favorable track for snow," Mr. Pollina said. "Most of the storms have been inland, west of New York City. We haven't really had too much cold air, but when we do, it hasn't coincided with precipitation."

But what about what Al Gore and some professors keep telling us?

Doesn't global warming explain this lack of snow?

Apparently not as the Sun continues:

A climate scientist with the federal government's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Gavin Schmidt, said the lack of snowfall this month cannot be attributed to global warming.

For a change of scene, let's go to Jerusalem from where the AP reports:

A rare snowstorm swept the Middle East on Wednesday, blanketing parts of the Holy Land in white, shutting schools and sending excited children into the streets for snowball fights. ..

Snow falls in Jerusalem once or twice each winter, but temperatures rarely drop low enough for it to stick. The Israeli weather service said up to 8 inches of snow fell in the city. ...

I reported. You decide.

Who doubts Nifong was an N&O anonymous source?

Folks, I've just sent the following email to N&O public editor Ted Vaden.

Dear Ted,

On the chance my previous email my have fallen off your computer screen, I'm resending it and again request a response which I'll publish in full at my blog.

I've made multiple requests to former N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill and current executive editor for news John Drescher asking them to confirm or deny columnist Ruth Sheehan's claim that then DA Mike Nifong served as an anonymous source for her May 27, 2006 news column attacking the Duke lacrosse players in terms similar to those Nifong himself would use later that day during his first public press interviews concerning what was then called “the Duke lacrosse rape case.”

I've also asked Sill and Drescher about any other use the N&O may have made of Nifong as an anonymous source in its news reports, news columns and editorials which presented Crystal Mangum as "the victim" and framed the Duke lacrosse players as her victimizers.

Neither Sill nor Drescher has said anything about Sheehan's claim in their print columns or at the Editors' Blog. Neither has made even a pro forma acknowledgement of my requests.

Given Sill's and Drescher's silence and Sheehan's claims documented in my previous email, it’s very reasonable to conclude the N&O worked with Nifong as an anonymous source.

But that isn't the same as the N&O providing readers with what it really owes them: a full explanation of what Nifong told the N&O and how it used that information.

As public editor, "the readers' advocate" as you say, isn’t it your responsibility to bring this most important matter to readers' attention; and to request the N&O make a full and frank disclosure if it used Nifong, or refute Sheehan's claims if it didn't.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

___________________________________________________

Email sent 1/23/08 to Ted Vaden

Dear Ted:

In your most recent column you said:

"small errors can have larger consequences. Not to mention misinforming or confusing the public. And -- drip, drip, drip -- eroding the newspaper's credibility with readers over time."

Small errors don't do much harm to the N&O's credibility. The public understands we all make errors.

I don't think even large errors, if fully acknowledged, explained and corrected, would do much harm to the credibility the N&O currently has.

What's really hurting the N&O's credibility, in my opinion, is its failure to acknowledge, explain and correct its large errors.

Because of the Internet and blogs, more and more readers are becoming aware of the N&O's failure to admit and correct large errors. Their awareness translates into reduced credibility for the N&O.

I hope you agree.

In any case, I want to ask you about a claim by Ruth Sheehan which, so far as I know, the N&O has never disputed.

Sheehan says Mike Nifong was the anonymous source for her May 27, 2006 "Team's Silence Is Sickening" column.

You very likely know what I'm talking about but in case you don't, and for the benefit of JinC readers, I'm providing the following information and asking you to respond on behalf of the N&O:

Author Don Yaeger (with Mike Pressler) in the book It's Not About the Truth (Threshold Editions, 2007) quotes Sheehan:

"I think on Saturday [March 25] we had the interview with the alleged victim. It was on Sunday I called into the office. I already had a column in the can because I run on Mondays.

But I called in about this story and they told me that there was another story with Nifong talking about how there was this wall of silence.

That's when I decided on that Sunday to write my first column about the case. [...]

I have to write a column about what people are talking about. And everybody was talking about it. It was so outrageous, the stuff that was in the paper. Her story, Nifong's recounting of it. Oh, my God. It was just like . . . you couldn't even believe it." (ellipses in Yaeger) (pg. 154)

A little further on Yaeger writes:

As she wrote, Sheehan made clear that in her mind the stories bubbling up from Nifong's office and the Durham Police Department were true. She was not alone. (pg. 155)

Yaeger then tells readers Sheehan added:

"Back during that period, no one was telling us that the players had been cooperative," she said in a January 2007 interview. "I know now that was not true. If I had known that then, I would have never written what I did. I would have thought what is Nifong talking about? That's not a wall of silence then. How is that a wall of silence?"(pg. 155)

The N&O’s March 25 "anonymous interview" story refers to “authorities [who’ve] vowed to crack the team's wall of solidarity.”

In the N&O's recent report of Yaeger’s book, staff writer Jim Nesbitt didn't even mention Sheehan’s account.

I posted on Nesbitt’s story here. I raised questions about why the N&O’s story said nothing about Yaeger's reporting on Sheehan’s column or any other part of the N&O’s framing of the lacrosse players last March.

I emailed Nesbitt and asked why that was the case. I offered to publish his response in full.

I received no reply to my email or to phone messages I left for Nesbitt and other N&O staffers.

Ted, there are at least three reasons why I have no doubt Yaeger quoted Sheehan accurately:

1) - Yaeger, a veteran reporter, must certainly have taped what Sheehan said, retained those tapes and been very careful to quote accurately from them;

2) - It’s now common practice for publishing houses to require that interviews of the sensitivity the one(s) Yaeger conducted with Sheehan are taped so it/they can be reviewed by the publishers’ attorneys for liability issues.

I believe Yaeger and Simon & Schuster would’ve been very careful to quote Sheehan accurately in any case; but they were no doubt particularly careful because, at the time the book was being prepared, Nifong was the subject of State Bar ethics charges, three lacrosse players were still under indictment, and Pressler’s suit against Duke was active.

3) - Sheehan has not disputed anything Yaeger attributes to her nor has the N&O so far as I know.

I think it would be in the best interests of the N&O and its readers for you to explain in your column Nifong's role as an anonymous N&O source in Spring 2006.

I look forward to your response which I'll post in full at my blog.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Liestoppers Blog and Media Roundup

For any of us following the Duke lacrosse case, events at Duke University and media coverage of those and related matters the go-to place is now Liestoppers daily blog and media roundup.

It’s one of the first pages I check every day.

If you haven’t already, give it a look.

Nifong bankruptcy plea unlikely to shield him

He tried a frame-up, manufactured evidence and repeatedly lied to courts and the public.

Now the disgraced Mike Nifong is trying bankruptcy as a means of avoiding being held to account through civil suits for his odious actions.

I’m not an attorney or knowledgeable about bankruptcy but attorneys I’ve spoken to who are say Nifong’s attempt to claim bankruptcy will not shield him in the civil suit brought by three former Duke students Nifong and others attempted to frame for gang rape and other felonies.

Two items in this post lend support to that conclusion. One is extracts from a Ray Gronberg story in today’s Durham Herald Sun. The other is a very informative post at Liestoppers.

Gronberg begins:

Former District Attorney Mike Nifong on Tuesday won what in all likelihood will be only a temporary respite from a civil-rights lawsuit filed against him in connection with his role in the Duke lacrosse case.

Because of Nifong's recent bankruptcy filing, U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. ordered court clerks to remove Nifong from the lawsuit filed by exonerated players David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.

A bankruptcy expert, Duke Law School adjunct professor Jeffrey Coyne, said Beaty's move was a "fairly standard administrative move to allow the rest of the lawsuit" to go on. The players are also seeking damages from the city, Durham police and administrators, and a Burlington DNA lab. …

The next move involving Nifong will occur on Feb. 8 in the Durham Centre. Bankruptcy trustee Sara Conti has scheduled a meeting that morning with the former DA's likely creditors. Nifong must attend and answer under oath questions put to him by Conti and his creditors.

The entire H-S story is here.

Second item: A Liestoppers post by Sceptical, Bankruptcy Dodge Won’t Work, which lays out the reasons why it will very likely not work. The post also links to one by Penn State Dickinson School of Law professor Mary T. Reilly. If you’re closely following Nifong’s bankruptcy claim, sure to read both posts and their threads

The Churchill Series - Jan. 29, 2008

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

Before the 1906 General Election, Churchill left the Conservative party and joined the Liberals. Mostly it had to do with free trade. He was a staunch free-trader.

The Liberals offered Churchill a chance to run for a Commons seat in Manchester held by a Conservative.

The race was seen as a tough go for him. His Conservative and Labour candidates were strong. And many people did not trust Churchill because of his party switch. Could you believe anything a turncoat said?

The Conservatives sought to take advantage of this distrust. They hit upon the idea of printing a pamphlet filled with quotes Churchill had made while in their ranks.

Let the public challenge him on what he'd once said. That would do him in.

The plan called for a first distribution early on the night Churchill would address a large crowd in a theater he had rented. Put the pamphlet in the hands of the people going in, run a few paid hecklers and some good party men in amongst the crowd, and we'll soon shout and hoot Mr. Churchill off on his own false words.

It was a good plan with everything in place as Churchill walked on stage to a mix of cheers, boos, and a lot of pamphlet waving and cries of "Do you deny this?"

He started his formal remarks but the pamphlet waving and cries of "Did you say it?" threatened to drown him out.

Churchill paused.

Then he drew a copy of the pamphlet from his pocket. “This pamphlet?” he asked.

He’d gotten a copy a few hours ago. He wanted someone to tell him what page he should look at.

Someone shouted out a page number.

Churchill read for a few moments; looked up; and admitted he's said what was on the page.

Hoots!

And what about other pages? He asked for a little quiet while he read them.

It was all true, he admitted. Everything he read was something he had said.

Churchill said he had no quarrel with the people who'd put the pamphlet together. They’d told the truth. He'd said "all those stupid things."

Before a now quiet audience, Churchill appeared to grow angry and started tearing out pages, crumpling some and tossing others over his shoulder all the while repeating, "stupid," "stupid."

Finally, with the pamphlet in shreds, Churchill thundered to the crowd, "Yes, I said all those stupid things because I was then a member of a stupid party but I left that party and joined one that...."

Much cheering, and the night was his.

When the votes were counted, Churchill, as the Brits say, "came first past the post."
_______________________________________________________
Many biographers have recorded the pamphlet episode. See, for example, Violet Bonham Carter, Winston Churchill: An Intimate Portrait. (pgs. 100 - 103)

Look who gave the Clintons “a moral reprimand”

No, it wasn't Rev. Al Sharpton or Sen. Ted Kennedy.

It was journalist Joe Klein at TIME.com who said:

Make no mistake: What happened in South Carolina … was a moral reprimand delivered to Bill and Hillary Clinton by a united Democratic Party--but especially by the African-American segment of that party. …

A mass, unspoken decision had been made that Bill and Hillary Clinton had behaved unjustly toward Barack Obama. ...

Obama struck precisely the right note in his victory speech, skewering the Clintons without naming them. And it seems to me that when he says that the election is a contest between "the past and the future," he is describing a situation that becomes truer every day, as the Clintons' vestigial political virtuosity becomes more creaky and transparent, and just seems out-of-date and distasteful in a party that may want to turn the page on all that. ...

Klein’s “moral reprimand” included his assertion “that the entire country [may be] tired of the pestilence of [the Clintons'] tactical tricks.”

Klein's entire “moral reprimand” is here.

In case you don’t know who Joe Klien is, this from Wikipedia:

In January 1996, Klein anonymously published the novel Primary Colors: A Novel of Politics, based on the 1992 Democratic presidential primary.

The book spent 9 weeks as number one on the New York Times bestseller list, with its author listed as "Anonymous".

Several people, including former Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet and, later, Vassar professor Donald Foster correctly identified Klein as the novel's author, based on a literary analysis of the book and Klein's previous writing.

Klein denied the results and publicly condemned Foster.

Klein misdirected further in Newsweek, speculating that another writer wrote it.

Washington Post Style editor David von Drehle, in an interview, asked Klein if he was willing to stake his journalistic credibility on his denial, to which Klein agreed.

“Misdirected” seriously understates what Klein actually did.

At the time a Newsweek columnist, Klein went for weeks telling his readers, editors and fellow journalists that he wasn’t the author of Primary Colors. They could trust him on that, Klein insisted. He reminded everyone he was "a journalist who told the truth."

When the truth came out, Klein had to resign from Newsweek.

But he’s a liberal/leftist and, things being as they are in the liberal/left MSM world, it wasn’t too long before Klein surfaced as a columnist for the liberal/leftist TIME where he recently delivered his "moral repirmand" of the Clintons.

The Clintons deserve more than one "moral reprimand."

But from Joe Klein?

Comment Moderation Enabled

Folks,

I've enabled comment moderation.

John

To The Chronicle re: Indoctrinate U?

Folks,

I’ve just sent the following email to Sherya Rao, news editor of Duke’s student newspaper The Chronicle.

John
________________________________________________________

Dear Editor Rao:

I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you today by phone.

I hope The Chronicle will report on tonight’s showing in Reynolds Auditorium of Indoctrinate U.

The Wall Street Journal called Indoctrinate U “riveting;” the London’s Daily Telegraph said “all of [us] should see” it.

Extracts of the WSJ and DT reviews are here along with extracts of other reviews.

IU’s director, Evan Coyne Maloney, considered by many one of America’s most outstanding filmmakers, will be in Reynolds tonight for a Q&A following the showing.

This link takes you to a site with biographical information on Maloney.

This sample of Maloney at work, “Columbia Quiz," a short, funny and revealing video is not to be missed.

IU’s major themes -- the lack of intellectual diversity at many colleges and universities and the consequences of that lack of diversity, including heinous and arbitrarily enforced speech codes along with procedural violations by school administrators of students rights – are matters of great interest to many Chronicle readers.

I think it would be a shame if The Chronicle failed to report on tonight’s showing. And failing to interview Maloney would certainly be a missed news opportunity.

Thank you for your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

Who thinks “liberal” is a smear?

Reuters won’t call a terrorist “a terrorist.” It says “one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another man’s ‘freedom fighter.’”

So at the left and PC Reuters, Ronald Reagan and Winston Churchill, Osama bin Laden and Yassar Arafat are pretty much all the same.

But what about calling someone “a liberal?”

Reuters says that’s “a harsh smear.” At least Reuters says it is “among conservative Republicans.”

After the following snip from Reuters, I offer a few comments.

McCain, Romney lob "liberal" smear in Florida push

By Jason Szep and Tim Gaynor,

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) - In a tight battle in Florida, John McCain and Mitt Romney competed to stick each other with the "liberal" tag, a harsh smear among conservative Republicans whose votes could be decisive in Tuesday's voting for presidential contenders. …

The entire Reuters story is here.

Comments:

Reuters is wrong about “liberal” being “a harsh smear among conservative Republicans.”

When, for instance, conservative Republicans “tag” Sen. John Kerry “a Massachusetts liberal” or Sen. Barack Obama “an Illinois liberal,” they don’t believe they’re smearing either man.

And indeed they’re not.

Both Kerry and Obama favor liberal policies –eg. racial preferences, opposition to meaningful school voucher programs, support for affirmative action. Both men receive very high approval ratings and strong support from liberal interest groups.

Reuters knows conservative Republicans don't think calling someone “a liberal” is “a harsh smear.” It’s liberal Democrats who believe that.

Why do you think they call themselves “centrists” and “progressives?”

And remember how upset the Dems got in ’04 because “Republicans are trying to smear Senator Kerry as a liberal.”

I listened during the ’04 campaign to an NPR program during which the guest “election experts” explained how the Republicans had, as I recall one of the “experts” saying, “used vast amounts of money to distort Kerry’s record and make him appear to be a liberal.”

And speaking of NPR and liberals - - -

But time’s passing. I’ll save that for another post.

The Churchill Series - Jan. 28, 2008

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

One of the best of the one volume studies of Churchill's life is Lord Jenkins', Churchill: A Biography, published in 2002. Historian John G. Plumpton began his review of Jenkins' biography with:

"There are times," wrote the great Cambridge scholar, Sir Geoffrey Elton, "when I incline to judge all historians by their opinion of Winston Churchill - whether they can see that no matter how much better the details, often damaging, of man and career become known, he still remains, quite simply, a great man."

Sir Geoffrey would have likely judged the new Churchill biography by Roy Jenkins favourably. The octogenarian Jenkins, a biographer of Attlee, Asquith, Baldwin and Gladstone, among others, and a political colleague of Labour leaders since World War II, concludes with a startling admission: "When I started writing this book I thought that Gladstone was, by a narrow margin, the greater man...I now put Churchill, with all his idiosyncrasies, his indulgences, his occasional childishness, but also his genius, his tenacity and his persistent ability, right or wrong, successful or unsuccessful, to be larger than life, as the greatest human being ever to occupy 10 Downing Street."

Plumpton's entire review is here. (Scroll down)

Jenkins's biography is in print and available at many book stores, on the net, and in most public libraries.

A subprime mortgage suggestion

We're being told that a lot of people who got involved and hurt in one or another aspect of the subprime mortgage debacle didn't understand what they were getting into.

I don't know how true that is but I have a suggestion that might help us avoid a "next time" or if there is a "next time," hold the people who got involved more responsible for their own actions.

Let's go back to calling subprimes what we used to call them: high risk mortgages.

Investors Challenge N. Y. Times Co.

Beneath the headline "Proxy Fight Planned at New York Times" the AP reports

A pair of investors disclosed plans Monday to name their own slate of four directors at The New York Times Co., saying the current board hasn't acted aggressively enough to meet the demands of the rapidly changing media industry.

The investors, Firebrand Partners and Harbinger Capital Partners, laid out their position in a letter to Times' Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and CEO Janet Robinson. The letter, dated Sunday, was disclosed in a regulatory filing Monday.

The Times said Friday that Harbinger had notified the company of its intention to name four directors for election at its next annual meeting on April 22. Firebrand indicated that it was working together with Harbinger and that together the two companies owned 4.9 percent of Times stock.

Investors pushed the Times' shares up $1.24 or 8.5 percent to $15.91 on Monday on optimism about possible changes there. However, Goldman Sachs publishing analyst Peter Appert, in a note to investors, said he was maintaining his longstanding "sell" rating on the stock as advertising moves to the Internet and other media.

"We do not see an easy or quick fix to what ails the company (and industry), other than continued investment to drive a migration of revenues and earnings to Internet-based operations," Appert said. "It is not clear to us what Harbinger and Firebrand bring to the table to address this challenge."

Harbinger had also disclosed on Friday that it intends to name directors at another newspaper company, Richmond, Va.-based Media General Inc. Both companies are controlled by families that hold supervoting stock, but in both cases the investors are seeking to nominate directors that are elected by non-family shareholders.

Firebrand Partners' founder Scott Galloway said in his letter that he and Harbinger had no intention of changing the Times' two-class share structure, which allows the Sulzberger family to maintain control of the company.

But Galloway added that the current board, "while impressive in stature, has not been effective in inspiring the requisite bold action this media environment demands." …

The entire AP story is here.

I recently posted Will the NY Times’ Sulzbergers Sell? which included a link to John Ellis’ column at RealClearPolitics.com laying out reasons why the Times may be a takeover target and why the Sulzberger family, which has a controlling interest in the Times, might sell.

A few readers ask why someone would buy the Times given all the trouble the news industry is facing.

I’m no expert on the subject but I asked two people who are.

Both said they thought the NYT stock price was undervalued. They noted that in addition to its many media assets, the Times has extensive real estate holdings. They reasoned a buyer could sell off some of its assests, thereby recouping much of what it had paid out while still retaining the paper, most of its electronic assests and the brand name.

Take that for what it’s worth.

Now an open source question I hope one of you can help with: After I published the “Sulzberger Sell?” post someone sent me a link to a detailed article on the Times financial woes. I skimmed it and meant to return to it but lost the link.

I think the article was at Am. Spectator but I can’t find it.

Can anyone provide a link to it or one like it?

Reader comments: most fine; some otherwise

Most comments at JinC “add to the blog.” Some point out errors I’ve made. Others contribute to informed and civil discussions on the threads. I often urge you to read the threads. I sometimes move comments to the main page and build posts on them.

But there are also comments, a minority to be sure, that add nothing to this blog. In fact, they detract from it.

Recently a handful of such comments have, among other things, used foul language, ridiculed a man with a physical handicap, expressed the wish to do physical harm to others or wished that physical harm, even death, would befall others with whom they disagreed. Some, with no credible evidence, have accused public figures of criminal acts.

I’ve deleted most of those comments. When I finish this post I’m going back through the comments to see if there are any I’ve missed.

I want to ask a few things of the great majority of you who comment here and add to the blog.

But first a few words to those whose comments are deleted and those who comment about how upset the deletions make them.

There is no need for any of you to be upset here. There are millions of blogs out there. Many welcome the kinds of comments you make and I delete. You can also have your own blogs and decide if you want to permit comments and, if you do, what your comment policy will be.

Now to Regulars and all others who comment within the rules here (Be civil, be fact-based and avoid ad hominems are the main ones):

During this election year I plan to post often on the campaign and public issues. I hope you “join the discussion.”

It may be necessary to go to some form of “administrator review” or registration but I’d like to avoid either or both alternatives if I can.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Finally, one more time, a “thank you” to each of you who adds to this blog.

John

Future showings of Indoctrinate U

Here's a list of upcoming showings of Indoctrinate U which the film's makers have provided:

Tue, Jan 29th -- 07:00PM -- Duke University

Tue, Jan 29th -- 07:00PM -- Louisiana State University (Shreveport)

Wed, Feb 13th -- 07:00PM -- San Diego State University

Mon, Feb 18th -- 07:00PM -- Ottawa, Ontario (non-campus)

Mon, Feb 25th -- 07:00PM -- Indiana University School of Law

I'm told there are a number of additional showings in the works.

The latest and detailed information on showings is available here. The list is periodically updated.

Always confirm a showing with the host site.

Powerline's Mirengoff on McCain

Powerline is one of my favorite blogs. I found this brief, telling post there today.

John McCain's litmus test

posted by Paul Mirengoff - - -

John Fund reports on John McCain's opportunity to make peace with conservatives and wonders whether McCain will take advantage of it. Fund's column includes this tidbit:

Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."

No one will ever accuse McCain of that "offense.

___________________________

Comment: Most Republican primary voters will draw the line at voting for Sen. McCain, in part because they know he wouldn't appoint people like Justice Alito.

On the other hand, if the MSM press corp had its way, McCain would be the Republican nominee.

Indoctrinate U is “funny, humane and powerful”

So said Powerline’s Scott Johnson of the documentary London’s Daily Telegraph said “all of you should see.” (Johnson's, DT's and others' review excerpts here. )

Indoctrinate U will be shown Tuesday, Jan. 29, at 7 PM in Reynolds Auditorium in Duke University’s Bryan Student Center.

The Bryan Student Center is beside Duke Chapel and next to a well-lighted public parking deck. A map is here.

Admission is free for Duke students and faculty, $5 for students of other schools and $10 for the general public.

National Review’s Carol Iannone said Indoctrinate U “is sound, shocking--even to someone who knows a lot about political coercion on today's campuses--and also, amazingly, highly entertaining. It is both amusing and sobering at once. It deserves widespread distribution in theatres across America."

Indoctrinate U’s director, Evan Coyne Maloney, will be at the showing for a Q&A.

Some of you may know Maloney as that gentle fellow who walks onto campuses to ask folks “a few easy questions.” Within minutes, the campus police often arrive.

In the next scene, he’s in the office of a dean or other administrative factotum.

That’s usually when Maloney's told that, of course, the school respects it students’ Constitutional rights and its strict enforcement of speech codes goes along with that.

Sometimes Maloney’s told he needs to leave campus or can only interview if accompanied by a school minder.

There’s a wonderful, funny and revealing example of what I’m talking about here at Columbia Quiz.

It’s a five minute video Maloney originally intended to include in Indoctrinate U.

But as they say, some of a film’s best material is often left on the cutting room floor.

Give Columbia Quiz a look.

Indoctrinate U’s showing at Duke is sponsored by Duke Students for an Ethical Durham.

Indoctrinate U showing at Duke Tuesday, Jan. 29

From a DSED release:

Duke Students for an Ethical Duke is sponsoring a screening of Indoctrinate U, a documentary film evaluating rampant and systematic violations of civil liberties in American institutions of higher learning.

We are also proud to bring to you the director and producer of Indoctrinate U, who will be in attendance for discussion and Q&A. MAP

This from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Human rights activist and campus freedom-fighter Thor Halvorssen is one of the producers of "Indoctrinate U," the freshly released documentary film that uses humor and Michael Moore-like tactics to expose the culture of political correctness and left-wing politics that dominates most American colleges.

The T-R follows that with a very informative interview with Halvorssen you can read here.

Indocrtinate U debuted in Washington last September to a full house at the Kennedy Center.

You can view a trailer here.

To wrap up - - -

INDOCTRINATE U

Tuesday

Jan. 29 2008

7 pm

Reynolds Auditorium

Duke University

www.indoctrinate-u.com

Tickets are available at the

Duke University Box Office

Those Raleigh News & Observer’s stripper ads

At the Editors’ Blog, Raleigh N&O executive editor for news John Drescher recently posted Headline on target: Both Clintons v. Obama

To date Drescher’s post has drawn one comment. It’s from reader Michelle Hillison who posted on Jan. 23.

Hillison’s comment follows in full, after which I offer a comment and make a request.

To Editor Drescher - - -

This isn't about the post at hand but I was hoping you could address this either here or as a post - or direct me where to ask this.

I've worked in media for many years so I understand ads are necessary. I also understand the generic demographic for sports readers skews male so it sadly is the nature spot for the 'adult' entertainment ads.

While I don't like those ads, I fully understand why you take them and place them in sports.

However what I don't understand is days that you place them directly adjacent to high school sports coverage. I've seen it regularly and today was another example. There was a right side column on 7C with several HS stories that ended with an ad for a stripper.

I find that irresponsible. High school coverage draws young viewers and a photo of a porn star coming to town is not what those kids should have their attention drawn to in the paper.

In issues like this, I normally think this is falls (sic) parents to be the stewards of what their kids see but if the information is right next to it, there doesn't seem to be many options.

I accept you all are going to take the money for those adult ads and place them in the paper but I think the placement of them can be better managed. Is there an official policy in place about this? Or a rule of thumb?

I think the N&O overall should have as a policy that adult ads do not appear on a page with high school or younger sports coverage.

Folks, as of today, Jan. 26, Drescher has made no reply to Hillison.

After reading Hillison’s comment, I decided to offer one myself.

Here it is, followed by a request to you:

Dear Editor Drescher:

Why does the N&O advertise strippers and “Men’s Clubs?”

Yesterday, Jan. 25, the N&O even placed one of its provocative and illustrated stripper ads ( "Casey Parker -- Live & uncensored for 4 nights & 1 incredible lunch show" ) right below stories about women's tennis and figure skating, and right beside an ad for UNC - Chapel Hill women's basketball.

Ugh!

You should answer Michelle Hillison's questions.

And you should answer my questions about the N&O's use of Mike Nifong as an anonymous source for the stories in which you trashed the Duke lacrosse players for hiring strippers and in other ways abetted the frame-up attempt.

Many readers wish the N&O would stop making money by advertising strippers and "Man's Clubs."

But if the N&O is going to solicit money from strippers and “Men’s Clubs," can’t you at least run the ads beside and below the editorials and your column?

That way high-school age and younger readers will be less apt to see them.

Think about it.

Thank you for reading this.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

I encourage readers to leave comments for Drescher on his EB post here. You can also contact the N&O’s publisher Orage Quarles III --- oquarles@newsobserver.com

Those of you who like twofers can leave a comment on Drescher’s post thread and paste the comment into your email to Quarles.

Two “must read” posts at Liestoppers

Many of you may have read them already, but in case you haven’t Liestoppers has two "must read" posts for those of you following the suits filed by victims of the attempted frame-up of Duke lacrosse players and the on going cover-up.

The first of the two is Bankruptcy Dodge Won’t Work , which citizen journalist skeptical posted. It begins:

While bankruptcy would normally end a civil suit, this is not the case if the debtor engaged in "malicious and willful" conduct. In a collaborative Blog composed of Penn State Dickinson School of Law members, Professor Marie T. Reilly posted her analysis of this bankruptcy filing.

Professor Marie T. Reilly is a scholar and teacher of bankruptcy, commercial law and contracts. She is an expert on fraudulent transfer law and has published articles on a variety of topics including corporate successor liability, check kiting, sexual harassment and the holder in due course rule.

Sceptical then provides an extensive paste-in of Riley’s post and a link to it.

Sceptical’s post is here.

The other "don’t miss" post is Coach Pressler files lawsuit against Duke University & John Burness.

It contains the sections of Pressler’s filing that are at the heart of his slander claim.

Bill Buckley says Edwards is a phony

At RealClearPolitics. com Bill Buckley begins :

I heard a plainspoken, sophisticated man of affairs, with a background of public service, make a statement not to be confused with a stump speech. It was for that reason all the more arresting. "The thing I regret most about the political scene," he said, "is that, as a Republican, I won't have an opportunity to vote against John Edwards in the primary." I gushed with the pride of tribal fidelity, as if running into a Christian in the middle of a desert.

Is my friend's hostility to Edwards entirely ideological? No. It is also, like mine, personal.

I just don't like his cultivated appeal to the bleachers, combined with the carefully trimmed hairdo. And maybe, most of all, the carefully maintained Southern accent, which you can hear him practicing before his lucrative appearances before the juries who listened to him and believed that they were listening to a brother, a good old Southerner, with all the right instincts for justice. …

Buckley notes the sorts of things John Edwards says to explain why voters should support him and wonders how people stand it:

[According to the “environmentalist” with a 30, 000 sq. ft. house,] "(Bush) comes from a world where wealth is largely inherited, not earned. That is not the world I come from. ... The difference between George Bush and John Edwards is, while he honors and respects only wealth, I honor and respect hard work. I honor and respect responsibility. I believe in opportunity. He's about building barriers and closing doors; I'm about exactly the opposite. I want to knock barriers down. I want to open doors."

I mean, can you stand it? That is political rhetoric of the kind we got a generation ago from the fire-breathing populists, as also from conniving communists and dogmatic socialists. …

John Edwards, who has about 20 percent of the Democratic delegates within his reach, certainly seems to believe that politicians who want to succeed should clothe themselves in populist formulations. But young politicians seeking success might wonder at the dangers of being too obvious about changing one's positions on public policies.

The New York Times, in its seigneurial manner, judges Edwards to have gone a little too far. In its Jan. 25 editorial, the Times appreciates his "fiery oratory," but goes on to regret that "we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we're not sure where he stands."

Where he stands is in the long line of critics of America who believe they can prosper politically by edging the American ethos over to left-welfarism. It's reassuring that Mr. Edwards, for all his pitch and fire against American success, should himself be prepared to join the ranks of the failed political class.

Buckley’s entire column is here.

I can’t think of anything John Edwards won’t stoop to to hustle votes.
Remember when he announced how proud he was that his young son Jack was telling playground friends they shouldn’t wear sneakers their parents bought them at Wal-Mart?

It’s good to hear Buckley believes Edwards will soon “join the ranks of the failed political class,” but the 20% of delegates Edwards may get could very well be a powerful bargaining chip heading toward the Dems national convention in Denver.

John Edwards brokering a Democratic convention won’t be a good thing for the Dems or the country.