The Churchill Series - Jan. 27, 2009

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

Detective Inspector Walter Thompson, Churchill’s principal bodyguard during WW II, recalled many times Churchill and he narrowly avoided being killed.

One such time occured one night during the Blitz when Churchill was at 10 Downing Street as the air raid warning sounded. Since structural and ground conditions prevented the construction of a satisfactory shelter at Downing Street, Churchill would be going to a reinforced shelter a few blocks away.

The shelter had been constructed to provide offices and quarters for Churchill and other government officials who'd have to carry on with duties during the raids. It was in the basement of the Treasury Annexe.

A car was always available to take Churchill to the shelter. But that night, as usual, Churchill insisted on walking despite Thompson’s urging they use the car.

As Thompson describes it they had just completed their walk and entered the Annexe when they heard a tremendous explosion outside; and Churchill went out to have a look.

The pavement where we had been walking twenty seconds earlier was now a crater. (Thompson later learned a thousand pound bomb had hit. - JinC)

As we went to the edge, the water main burst and we were drenched. I hoped this would teach him a lesson, but it did not. Hardly a month went by when we could not have been wiped of the earth.

The Annexe is now called The Cabinet War Rooms. It is much as it was when Churchill and others used it. You can learn more at Cabinet War Rooms. The Web site contains useful information for those planning a visit. A small Churchill museum has now been added to the part of the shelter open to the public.

If you haven't visited already, I hope you do someday.
_______________________________________________________
Tom Hickman, Churchill's Bodyguard: The Authorised Biography of Walter H. Thompson. (pgs. 101-119)

McClatchy suspends quarterly dividend indefinitely

The AP reports - - -

McClatchy Co., the nation's third-largest newspaper publisher, said Tuesday it is suspending its quarterly dividend after paying out its dividend for the first quarter of 2009 so it can save up cash to repay its debts.

The publisher of papers such as The Miami Herald and The Sacramento Bee said it declared a quarterly cash dividend of 9 cents payable on April 1 to shareholders of record on March 11.

But the company said in a news release that after that, the dividend would be suspended "for the foreseeable future" so it could conserve its cash.

McClatchy, like others in the newspaper industry, is seeing a decline in advertising revenue which is hurting profit. Advertisers have been pulling back amid the recession, and increasingly shifting their marketing dollars to the Web.

McClatchy said its first-quarter dividend is worth half the per-share dividend paid in the same period last year.

Shares of McClatchy rose 2 cents, or 2.4 percent, to close at 85 cents.

_____________________________________________
My comments:

Advertisers were shifting their dollars to the Web long before this recession started.

They were following readers who were abandoning McClatchy newspapers.

The market understood this even if McClatchy’s top execs have denied it for years.

As recently as five years ago, McClatchy traded in the mid-70s.

In March 2006 when the economy was still growing, McClatchy traded in the mid-40s.

So what did McClatchy do?

CEO Gary Pruitt, ignoring the clear warning his company’s 40%+ stock price decline signaled, went out and bought the Knight-Ridder chain.

McClatchy's taking on more newspapers then was as smart as a captain of a sinking ship taking on more anchors.

In less than five years McClatchy has dropped from the mid-70s to penny stock status with Pruitt and other top execs getting performance bonuses all along the way.

Can you believe that?

All I can say tonight is pity the small shareholders and the many honest, able people who work for McClatchy.

Any wonder they are so angry?

Hat tip: Louisiana Wise Man

Dowd Report's Excellent Fisk

Sunday, Jan. 24, I posted A few very recent Caroline Kennedy articles.

I cited four MSM articles including the column that day by the NY Times’ Maureen Dowd, the only person over 16 who thinks maybe Teddy really was hurrying with Mary Jo Kopechne to catch the last ferry off the island when he made a wrong turn off a hardtop down a dirt road that led across a narrow bridge to a “lovers lane” parking area.

Regarding Dowd’s column (“Which Governor Is Wackier”) my only points were to call the column to readers' attention and note with one example how the "glow of Camelot" still influenced Dowd; such that she said downright foolish things.

Dowd Report commented and chided me because: "That Dowd article is a lot more vicious than you make it out to be."

I promised Dowd Report I’d say more about the column and link to DR’s post on it.

I’m late doing that, but here goes:

DR provides an excellent fisking of Dowd's column and leaves on doubt about its meanness.

Example:

So in Dowd’s rampage she is calling a pox on everybody’s house. The presumed rival to Caroline was Andrew Cuomo, so she now implicitly endorses him over Paterson.

Paterson wasn’t thinking of New York, only of how an upstate ally who was a woman would bolster his own chances for re-election. We can only hope that an avenging Andrew Cuomo takes him out in a primary.

Since her campaigning for Caroline went so well, Dowd also names her preferred choice for taking out Gillibrand in revenge.

Carolyn McCarthy, who ran for Congress on an antigun platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993, said she may challenge the “N.R.A. poster child” in 2010.

There’s a lot more to Dowd Report’s fisk.

You can give it a look here.

And the best of luck to Dowd Report.

Tim Tyson, the Raleigh N&O & Whiteys’ Place

On March 27, 2006 the Raleigh News & Observer ran a story, “Rally calls for action at Duke” (reg. req’d), which began:

A cacophony of clanging pans pierced the crisp morning air Sunday as a group of Duke University students, neighbors and activists spoke out against sexual violence.

Bundled in sweaters and sweatshirts, about 100 people gathered at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where a woman said she was raped this month at a party hosted by Duke men's lacrosse team players. …

"This is a wake-up call to challenge sexual assault and racial violence," Manju Rajendran, 25, a Durham resident and organizer of Sunday's event, said through a bullhorn just after 9 a.m. "We're trying to break the silence. ... Women have a right to dignity and respect." ...

Attendees at the event Sunday criticized Duke for being too lenient on team members.

Some protesters carried signs including one that read, "All rapes deserve outrage." ...

The biggest signs the protesters carried were banners; one reading “CASTRATE” and another “GIVE THEM EQUAL MEASURE”

But the N&O’s story said nothing about those threatening banners; nor were there any N&O editorials, op-ed or “news analysis” stories condemning the threatening crowd and their banners.

Does the N&O’s silence tell you the mob and its banners were targeting Whiteys? If it doesn't, you must still be waiting for Mike Nifong to produce his “smoking gun.”

The same goes for understanding why the N&O used only one sentence to describe a group of racists on May 18, 2006 shouting threats, including death threats, at a man outside and then again inside the Durham County Courthouse.

The man, one of those whose attempted frame-up Tyson enabled, had to be a Whitey and the racists black.

If the frame-up victim and his racist threateners races were reversed, the story would’ve started on the N&O’s front page with banner headlines.

All the above came to mind today when I read on the N&O’s editorial page an opinion piece by Duke professor Tim Tyson and saw the headline the N&O’d given it.

Tyson, one of the most attention seeking of the Duke faculty members who eagerly embraced false accuser Crystal Mangum’s hoax and the frame-up attempt led by a now disbarred Mike Nifong, begins by telling readers:

God probably dozes off during public prayer anyway. But the Rev. Joseph Lowery's mischievous benediction for the Obama inaugural may have made the Creator giggle. It ended with a plea to "help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right. Let all those who do justice and love mercy say amen." Loud laughter and a chorus of "amens" followed.

Tyson uses the rest of his op-ed to persuade us Rev. Lowery’s singling out only whites as needing to “embrace what is right” was not in any way inappropriate or racist. It was a just a joke.

You know about "Jew" jokes, "Amos and Andy" jokes and "Whitey" jokes, don't you?

Tyson likes the one he says Lowery told at President Obama's Inauguration. He found it a God-given knee-slapper.

Tyson's upset that others didn't get what he says was Lowery's great joke about Whitey.

Tyson want’s Whiteys to lighten up and understand “God has a sense of humor” The N&O went along headlining the op-ed: “Amen to a spirited blessing.”

Suggestion for the N&O:

Start a new section called Whiteys’ Place for stories like “Rally calls for action at Duke” and op-eds like “Amen to a spirited blessing.”

The Churchill Series - Jan. 26, 2009

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

Churchill’s an important part of this post today but the last word goes to H.R.H. King George V.

It’s July 1919. The Great War is over; Britain's drastically reducing the size and scope of its military.

The Royal Air Force is a separate service arm, having been made so in an expedient move in the closing months of the war.

But the planned reductions include eliminating the RAF as a separate arm; and reassigning what remains of it back to the Army and Navy as things were before the war.

Churchill, as Secretary of State for War and Air, believes a separate air service offers the best chance of Britain developing an adequate air defense system. So does King George. They carry the day with a decision that will later be seen as essential to victory in the Battle of Britain.

Once the RAF’s future existence was assured, the matter of equivalent ranks among the services arose. The Army had its Field Marshals; the Navy its Sea Lords. What would the RAF’s equivalent be called?

The rank of Marshal of the Air was proposed. Churchill was fine with it, but the Army and Navy didn’t like it at all.

When the ranking RAF officer went to Buckingham Palace to discuss the matter with the King, the King remarked, “Don’t you think Marshal of the Air is poaching a bit on the preserves of the Almighty?”

He had a suggestion: “Why not simply Marshall of the Royal Air Force?”

The matter was settled.
_____________________________________________
Peter Townsend, Duel of Eagles. (pgs. 22-41)

Comments re: Wind and Power Blowhards

Comments or parts thereof from the thread of Wind and Power Blowhards are in italics.

My responses are in plain

Cks said . . .

The greenies are all in favor of green technology as long as the accouterments necessary to bring about the green revolution do not impinge on their surroundings - it is ok, however if the lower orders have their views from their windows obscured[.]

Absolutely! There's no point being a high-powered greenie if you have to live near a wind farm.

BTW - Did you know most liberal scholars now agree there were at least 5 species of unicorns but no wind farms in Camelot?

JohnO @ 7:55 - - -

One fact is sure, there will no longer be a "business as usual" approach to energy policy. America's current energy grid can not be sustained.

There is so much graft and political influence in energy politics – green and fossil both. Can we really get at least partially free of our energy-politics-as-usual practices? I hope so.

Anon @ 8:07 - - -

They should probably put all the wind farms in "flyover" country. Who cares if the hicks out in Oklahoma have these things messing up their landscape?

I know your tongue's in your cheek but most of the “stick the wind farms in Kansas, not in Teddy's oceanfront” crowd don’t understand there are costs associated with transporting energy to densely populated areas; those costs including energy loss as it travels from source to user.

drew said.- - -

John, I am perhaps one of those you describe as using "summer" as a verb - I have a place on Nantucket, and try to get there at least a couple of weeks each summer.

It was the WSJ editorialists who described people as using “summer” as a verb.

For the rest of the summer, it's an investment property; in the other three seasons, it's a substantial chore and a significant expense.

In my rather limited perspective, it seems that the people most opposed to Cape Wind are "mainlanders"; i.e., the folks who are concerned about their views of the sound, or the impact on other very local infrastructure. For Nantucketers, the impact would largely be negligible.

Everything on the island (apart from fog and wind) needs to be imported over the water. That includes gasoline, food, drinking water (sometimes), toilet paper and the like. To get to the island, these goods travel by ferry - the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority.

And guess who essentially controls the Steamship Authority? The Kennedy family largely selects the Authority members, and pushes their appointments through the political process.

Travel to the islands is not inexpensive - taking the car to Nantucket is over $400 each season, which is why many people just leave an old car on the island year-round if they have a place to stash it in the off-season and someone to keep the battery charged.

But the economic incentive to the islanders from Cape Wind is diminished somewhat - some years ago, the islands were successful in getting an undersea electrical cable installed, and all electricity is now brought from the Cape to the islands by cable. Previously, it was generated locally on the island using fuel oil.

As a frame of reference, understand that gasoline was over $6 a gallon this past summer on Nantucket (remember, it's based on mainland prices plus the cost of bringing it over the Sound. Imagine what the cost of fuel oil would have been - although the "old" generators used bunker fuel (the type used in ships' boilers), the cost of electricity would have probably been 5-6 times what it cost on the mainland this past summer.

So the "island locals" don't benefit much from Cape Wind, except for any host benefits or other government-rigged emoluments that might ensue.

You should also understand that Nantucket Sound is a very large body of water - putting in windmills (while locally disruptive to views from any direction) would not "plug up" the ability to use the water for recreation or fishing.

In fact, the windmills would likely create an in increase in pleasure boat traffic to Nantucket - the island cannot be seen from the mainland (it's over the horizon visually), and the waters are prone to fog.

With a series of windmill towers as a guide, even smaller craft without serious navigation systems could actually make the 30-mile trip and find Nantucket over the horizon.

What most of this brouhaha boils down to is hubris and politics (like many other things do). The Kennedys want to sound and look like they're environmentalists, but they don't want to actually do anything about it, so they pull their considerable strings to make certain that it doesn't come to pass.

Personally, I'd rather see the Gitmo detainees put on a prison ship anchored right off Hyannisport, so that Ted and the clan can see what he has wrought in the Senate. Perhaps with that as an alternative, the calls to close Gitmo will calm down almost overnight, and the Kennedys will let the "bad people" stay in Cuba.

It could be a win/win for all of us.

Drew, how about this: The Gitmo bad guys and the Kennedys get Nantucket all to themselves with a Navy blockade of the island. You and the other Nantucket people get all the Kennedy properties and Gitmo to divide among yourselves?

Wait! Wait! That’s not all.

The Constitution is amended to add 2 Senate and 4 House seats to the Congress; with clauses stating the 6 seats must always be held by people who vacated Nantucket and their direct descendants who are also the only ones eligible to vote in elections for those seats.

Think about it.

And thank you all four for your comments.

John

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)