NY Times report: Fact and spoof

Some of the following is true; some is spoof. I bet you can guess which is which. If you're not sure, here's a big hint: The NYT is finally reporting about the Air America loan scandal.
__________________________________________________

Blogger Michelle Malkin is reporting that The New York Times, America's highest circulation liberal daily, will announce in Friday's paper that a sister liberal media organization, talk-radio network Air America, is the subject of investigations by both New York City's Department of Investigation and New York State's Attorney General.

The investigations deal with bizarre loan(s) totaling $875,000.00 made by a community service organization to one of its board members, who at the time was also an executive with Air America. Some money paid for the executive's personal expenses, but investigators believe most want to Air America.

Air America talk-show host Al Franken, self-identified as a scandal victim, seems to have suffered no loss in public approval because of the scandal.

According to a poll completed just this evening by The Pew Center for Liberal Humbuggery, Franken's approval rating is statistically the same as those of America's two most popular liberal icons, Sen. Ted Kennedy and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

The Times' announcement follows by almost two weeks reports on the scandal by every other New York City daily.

Asked to comment on The Times' delay, Malkin said only, "Well, that's The Times for you, isn't it?"

Thank you & a bit about the N&O editor

I wanted to post an update on what's happened since Aug. 9 when Raleigh News & Observer news editor and blogger Melanie Sill claimed the liberal N&O couldn't report on the loan scandal engulfing liberal talk-radio network Air America because: "We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story."

A lot has happened these past 2 days.

But I need more time to pull it all together. So please check back tomorrow after 5 PM Eastern.

Now, please read on. Thanks; and other important items follow.

Heartfelt thanks go to all of you who've pitched in and helped put Sill's "do not find" claim out in the blogosphere. You've given clear context to what Sill is saying. It will be hard for anyone to misunderstand her position.

There are the bloggers who linked: Michelle Malkin, Confederate Yankee, Captainsquartersblog, Palmetto Pundit, and others I'm sure I missed.

There are also the more than 140 of you who have either posted informative and/or appropriately critical messages at Sill's blog, commented at JinC or e-mailed me.

Be sure to go to Sill's blog here (her first post) and here (her second post). Read those messages. They'll tell you an awful lot about the Raleigh N&O and what's acceptable in MSM news organizations.

After reading them, I doubt anyone but folks like Sen. Kennedy and Al Franken will say there isn't liberal bias in at least one MSM newspaper.

Yes, there have been a handful of "messages" to Sill and me that we'd all be better off without. They don't belong in civil discourse.

But with more than 140 valuable messages --- and that kind still coming in -- well, readers, what can I say but thank you.

Now, I'll leave you with just one example of what I mean by a valuable message. It was left at Sill's blog. She's yet to respond to it, but she sure needs to. Here's part of it:

________________

In her first Air America post, Melanie said:

"We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story"

but in her second post (after many commentators told her where to find "this story"), Melanie said:

"I found the same stories on Air America that you all mention a couple days ago in Internet searches and by using Factiva, a paid service we use for research"

The commentator added:

I am so confused...
___________________

Let's hope Sill gets around to clearing up her self-contradiction and the ensuing confusion.

Contact info for McClatchy papers

For those of you who want MSM to report on the Air America scandal here's a list of the McClatchy news organization dailies with contact information.

While some papers have reported on the story, most of MSM is ignoring it.

My hope is that if we can convince the McClatchy papers to publish, their publishing will encourage other MSM papers to do the same.

If enough readers make short, civil, fact-based calls to McClatchy news execs, we may convince them to give the story the attention it deserves. Thanks in advance.

California

The Fresno Bee
fresnobee.com
Publisher: Ray Steele 559-441-6060
Editor: Charlie Waters 559-441-6410

The Modesto Bee
modbee.com
Publisher: Lynn Dickerson 209-578-2090
Editor: Mark Vasche 209-578-2356

The Sacramento Bee
sacbee.com
Publisher: Janis Besler Heaphy 916-321-1885
Editor: Rick Rodriguez 916-321-1002

Merced Sun-Star
mercedsun-star.com
Publisher: Hank Vander Veen 209-385-2400
Editor: Joseph W. Kieta 209-385-2456


Minnesota

Star Tribune
Minneapolis
startribune.com
Publisher: Keith Moyer 612-673-7902
Editor: Anders Gyllenhaal 612-673-1734


North Carolina

The News & Observer
Raleigh
newsobserver.com
Publisher: Orage Quarles III 919-829-4659
Editor: Melanie Sill 919-829-8986


South Carolina

The Beaufort Gazette
beaufortgazette.com
Publisher: Sara Johnson Borton 843-706-8105
Executive Editor: Steve Blust 843-986-5530

The Herald
Rock Hill
heraldonline.com
Publisher: Valerie D. Canepa 803-329-4042
Editor: Terry Plumb 803-329-4060

The Island Packet
Bluffton and Hilton Head Island
islandpacket.com
Publisher: Sara Johnson Borton 843-706-8105
Editor: Fitz McAden 843-706-8110


Washington

The News Tribune
Tacoma
tribnet.com
Publisher: Cheryl Dell 253-597-8554
Editor: David Zeeck 253-597-8434

Tri-City Herald
Kennewick
tri-cityherald.com
Publisher: Rufus Friday 509-582-1443
Editor: Ken Robertson 509-582-1520


Alaska

Anchorage Daily News
adn.com
Publisher: Mike Sexton 907/257-4210
Editor: Patrick Dougherty 907-257-4303

Hat Tip: Contact information comes from McClatchy's site: http://www.mcclatchy.com/newspapers/non_dailies/

Also,a blog visitor linked me to McClatchy's site.

Air America and N&O editor: There's more to do.

With very few exceptions, the messages responding to Raleigh News & Obswever exec. news editor and blogger Melanie Sill have been civil, informed, and literate. The best of the blogosphere!

The e-mails I've received have been the same.

Very many of the messages have focused on a self-contradiction Melanie put before us. Here, in part, is what one commentator said:
________________

In her first Air America post, Melanie said:

"We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story"

but in her second post Melanie said:

"I found the same stories on Air America that you all mention a couple days ago in Internet searches and by using Factiva, a paid service we use for research"

The commentator added:

I am so confused...
___________________

Melanie needs to clear up her self-contradiction and the ensuing confusion so people can move on.

Meanwhile, the N&O should report on the Air America scandal.

I think N&O readers would be proud if the N&O led its sister McClatchy papers in reporting on the scandal.

And wouldn't it be great if then the McClatchy papers broke through the current MSM blackout and brought the story to the American public’s attention?

Here’s a chance for MSM news organizations and bloggers to team.

I’ll post tomorrow by 11 AM Eastern a list of McClatchy papers with e-mail and phone contacts.

Check back then. If we all do our bit, something good might happen. Don’t give up on MSM.

BTW – If anyone does the McClatchy contact work first, please send the link.

And now, good night.

John

Help an editor find the Air America story

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin, Mudville Gazette, and other blogs I may have missed. After you read this post, you can go here for more about the N&O's liberal bias. If you'd like something lighter, you might try: Sen. Kerry sure makes a lot of demands.)


Raleigh News & Observer news editor and blogger Melanie Sill and I have had a few back-and-forths regarding whether readers' complaints of liberal bias in the N&O’s news columns are valid. You can guess what each of us believes. But right now that’s not important.

What’s important is that Sill says she can’t find the Air America scandal story, so the N&O can’t even consider reporting on it. That was after other readers had alerted her to the story, and I had e-mailed her regarding a post which included the following paragraph:

The scandal has been widely reported in all New York City newspapers except the liberal Times. For instance, here and here. National newspaper columnists have reported on it. Here’s Mark Steyn’s column. Bloggers have reported, with Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey on top of the story every day. I just Googled “Air America loan scandal” and got more than 330,000 hits.

Sill responded at her blog and by e-mail.

Here's Sill’s blog post in full:

Re Air America complaints

Here's a brief response I've sent a couple of email correspondents who accuse The N&O of liberal bias for not publishing a story on financial questions they have heard about involving Air America, the national radio network heard in the Triangle on WCHL-AM in Chapel Hill, and a charity in the Bronx. Here's what I said: "We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story... if a story is reported and distributed we will look at publishing it."

Blogs can draw attention to overlooked stories, and perhaps that's the case here. We'll keep looking.

Here's Sill's e-mail response in full:

John,

I'll repeat this brief response on the blog... we've checked our news
services repeatedly and do not find this story. In searching blogs I
find repeated references but no original reporting. Thus I'm not
certain at this point what "story" exists on Air America, but if a
story is reported and distributed we will look at publishing it. I'd
point out that this is an example of conspiracy theories without basis.
You accuse me and The N&O of bias -- where is any evidence of this?

Best regards,
Melanie Sill

Well, obviously I failed to get my message across. But let’s move on.

Can any of you help Editor Sill who will "keep looking" but is "not certain at this point what 'story' exists on Air America?"

Raleigh's News & Observer is one of the two largest daily circulation newspapers in North Carolina (The Charlotte Observer is the other). The N&O is part of the McClathey news chain. So any help given Sill could have a big impact.

Readers - bloggers - journalists - please help.

I'm glad Sill is blogging and dialogues with readers. Many MSM execs won't.

Here’s the link to her blog. Her e-mail is: msill@newsobserver.com

Thanks,

John

An MSM pundit wants to fire someone

We hear day-by-day about all sorts of questionable practices by MSM news organizations and it seems nothing happens. But now there's a MSM pundit ready to fire someone?

If you're saying to yourself, "Sure. Is it Carl Rove or the President the pundit wants fired," then you understand just how most of MSM works.

This time it's the President who should be fired/impeached; and it's Beth Quinn of Middletown, New York's Times Record-Herald who wants him impeached.

Quinn's evidence for the impeachment? Must you ask?

Well, she offers the discredited Downing Street memos which the reporter who claimed to have gotten the originals from "a reliable source" says he no longer has. But he did make photo copies of them.

The photo copies? Where are they?

Why, the reporter burnt those, of course. Don't you understand?

Anyway, Confederate Yankee does a first-rate job of telling us about the "Downing Street memos," and in the process he helps us recognize the kind of pundit Beth Quinn is.

His post is a model of the sort of post I try for but often fall short of.

Nice work, CR!

Palmetto Pundit picks up on some MSM hokum

With some gentle poking at The Washington Post for its annual whine about the President's vacation, Palmetto Pundit reminds me again of why he's one of my favorite bloggers.

But I've a question for him. Something he didn't cover in his post.

When comparing President Bush's vacation days to President Clinton's, does the Washington Post count days Clinton spent in the Oval Office with Monica as work or vacation days?

How about all that time Clinton spent with attorneys working up his defense in the Paula Jones suit, and the time he later spent negotiating that $800,000.00 settlement with her?

I'd say all that time was vacation/play related, but I'll listen to any Democrat in or out of MSM who says it was work.

But, of course, the final call is the Washington Post's.

Sen. Kerry sure makes a lot of demands

At Realclearpolitics.com, author and scholar Thomas Sowell notes Senator John Kerry "has called the activation of reservists and National Guardsmen 'a backdoor draft.' " Kerry has demanded those activations stop.

In 2003, as American troops were fighting their way into Baghdad, Kerry demanded regime change in the capital city. He was, of course, talking not about Baghdad but Washington.

At the outset of the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry called a group of businessmen "Benedict Arnolds." Shortly thereafter, he demanded people stop questioning his patriotism.

Later in the presidential campaign, Kerry called the Swift boat veterans liars. Then he demanded they stop criticizing him.

Recently, Kerry demanded the release of all records relating to Judge John Roberts' government service, including records most legal scholars say are protected by attorney-client privilege.

Come to think about it, Kerry's demanded just about everything except release of his own military records.

A kinder, gentler Al Franken?

If you've read Al Franken's books Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Then; and listened to his harsh personal attacks on those with whom he disagrees, you may have said to yourself: "Al Franken just can't be nice to anyone."

Well, you'd be wrong about that.

An article in today's New York Post reveals a soft-spoken Franken who's sympathetic to someone he sees as a victim: himself.

AL Franken says 20,000 poor kids and old people weren't the only victims of an exec who allegedly arranged a Bronx charity's mega-buck "loan" to Air America.

"About three weeks into the life of Air America, I became an involuntary investor — I stopped being paid," Franken told listeners yesterday on WLIB (1190 AM).

It was the first time the all-liberal network's biggest star addressed at length a controversial $875,000 loan from the disgraced — and now de-funded — Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club.

Is this really a new kinder, gentler Al Frankem we're seeing? Or is he just being careful what he says concerning his former boss and friend about whom he may have to testify in a number of legal proceedings?

And what's with this Franken being victim number 20,001? He's financially very well off, unlike the kids who are among New York City's poorest.

Finally, when will Franken tell us whether he'll invite Michelle Malkin on his show; and if so, under what terms?

I'm sending him another e-mail as soon as I finish this.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Raleigh News & Observer editor has a bias test

Raleigh News & Observer executive editor and blogger Melanie Sill continues to get readers’ complaints about liberal bias at the N&O.

Sill denies the paper's news columns contain bias:

People I meet often seem to think we make decisions on news based on politics, either overtly or unconsciously. Instead, our framework for pursuing news is based on journalistic questions.

Sill wants readers who see a N&O liberal bias to take a kind of test:

When I've spoken with others who share this perception, I've asked them to look at the paper for a few days as if they were on the other side.

As for any readers who might still see bias, Sill says:

If you're looking for evidence of bias, you can find it.

Despite Sill’s dismissive "If you’re looking for evidence of bias, you can find it," I hope readers will take Sill’s "the other side" test.

But first Sill should give us a clearer idea of what she means by looking from "the other side."

Does she mean political leanings left and right? What constitutes looking from "the other side" for those of us who are political independents or apolitical?

Will Sill accept readers' identification of bias based both on what the N&O reports and on what it fails to report? After all, what a newspaper fails to report can be an excellent indicator of its bias.

For example, on Aug. 5 the N&O ran a pg. 2, three- column, top of the page story with photo about a dustup conservative columnist Bob Novak and Democrat political operative James Carville had on CNN which resulted in Novak’s walking off the set, and subsequently being suspended by CNN.

I’ve no problem with the N&O running a story on the Novak/Carville dustup. It’s newsworthy.

But when I read the Novak/Carville story and also know the N&O has maintained for at least 10 days a news blackout on the loan scandal engulfing liberal talk-radio network Air America, I think about new bias.

If you’re familiar with the Air America scandal, you may want to skip the following paragraph. If you count on the N&O for your news, you may want to read it.

The Air America scandal is now in its 11th day. New York City’s Department of Investigation and New York State’s Attorney General are investigating how and why a community service agency, funded primarily with government grants and charged with serving poor children and the elderly, made unsecured loans to one of its board of directors, who at the time was also an owner of Air America . At least $875,000.00 in loans is involved. Investigators have determined some of the money was spent for personal items; the rest given to financially strapped Air America. New York City will no longer provide money to the community agency. That's forced it to suspend most of its services to some of the city’s poorest children and elderly in the Bronx. Air America has issued a number of statements but they've failed to answer important questions.

The scandal has been widely reported in all New York City newspapers except the liberal Times. For instance, here and here. National newspaper columnists have reported on it. Here’s Mark Steyn’s column. Blogger have reported, with Michelle Malkin and Ed Morrissey on top of the story every day. I just Googled “Air America loan scandal” and got more than 330,000 hits.

All of that, but not one word about the scandal in Raleigh’s liberal N&O.

Besides clarifying what she means by “the other side,” I hope Editor Sill will encourage readers to identify N&O bias not just by what the paper reports, but by what it leaves out.

I'm trackbacking to her post and e-mailing her this post.

Mr. Orkin: Stop by The New York Times

First, The New York Times tried secretly to get into the sealed adoption records of the 4 and 5 year old children of Judge John Roberts and his wife Jane.

The Times "investigation team" only stopped when Matt Drudge and Fox News' Brit Hume turned the lights on them.

The Times then scurried for cover with a Bill Keller "Hey, I'm adopted to" statement.

Now those who fill the The Times "news columns" are back with this headline: "Roberts's View About Privacy Is Still Unclear."

Someone needs to call the pest control man, Mr Orkin. He can be reached here.

If Malkin's ready for Franken's show, where's Al?

Is Michelle Malkin ready to go on Al Franken’s show?

Yesterday, I posted an open e-mail to Franken saying I understood it’s hard for him to talk about Air America’s loan scandal. So why not invite Michelle Malkin on. She’ll present the facts and history of the scandal; then answer listeners’ questions. It’s the least his listeners deserve.

I’ve heard nothing yet from Franken. Malkin responded with “fat chance,” which I think means she’s willing to go on but feels Franken will duck and not invite her.

But one commentator at my blog thinks Malkin’s "fat chance" remark means she wouldn’t go on. I replied (see below)

I’m sending this to Malkin. She can speak for herself.

Meanwhile, if you know Al Franken, please ask him to get in touch with me. If he prefers, he’s of course free to call Malkin to let her know his decision.
____________________________________________________________

REPLY TO COMMENT:

A commentator said Michelle Malkin's response indicated she didn't want to go on Al Franken's show.

I think her response indicated she thought there was a "fat chance" (her words) Al Franken would invite her on his show to discuss the Air America loan scandal.

I think Malkin is willing to go on.

Anyway, Malkin can tell us if she'll go on Franken's show and under what conditions.

Franken can tell us whether he'll invite her on and under what conditions.

And meanwhile, the rest of us can visit Malkin's blog and read her latest updates on the scandal.

And we can also visit Franken’s blog at Air America. Maybe one of us will be the first person to see a recent post by Franken or anyone else at Air America about the loan.

I'm going to ask Malkin if she'll promise to link on her site to anything Franken or Air America posts at theirs.

Then, we can all make up our minds.

Are you OK with what I'm proposing?

Thanks for commenting.

John

To Al Franken: Invite Michelle Malkin on

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Maklin and Mudville Gazette. - John)

I just sent the following e-mail to Al Franken. What do you think he'll say?

Dear Mr. Franken:

You’re understandably uncomfortable talking on your show about the Air America scandal.

Who wouldn’t be if New York City’s Department of Investigation and New York State’s Attorney General were looking into how their employer spent on himself and his network hundreds of thousands of dollars meant for needy children and Alzheimer victims?

What’s more, I’m sure attorneys have told you that at some point you may be called to testify in a criminal investigation. So besides being uncomfortable, you must be extraordinarily circumspect.

Yet Air America listeners deserve to know the facts.

What to do? How about inviting Michelle Malkin on your show? Let her give listeners a summery of what’s happened and then take questions. You wouldn’t have to get into “sticky stuff” yourself; you could just facilitate.

Malkin would be a great choice. She’s followed the scandal since day one; and posted on it often. She’ll be able to state the facts, provide informed commentary, and answer listeners’ questions.

How about it?


Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Millions approve what The Times did

(Update: Rightwingnews.com satires the NY Times' efforts to get into the Roberts' children's adoption records. Take a look at it here along with the post bolow.)

Michelle Malkin has an excellent post regarding The New York Times' efforts to get into the sealed adoption records of Judge John Roberts and his wife Jane's children. Her post includes letters rightly critical of The Times but none supporting it.

While they may be silent now, we can be sure millions approve what The Times did. We'll hear from them soon.

I bet we can agree they'll turn out to be people:

who said it was a private matter when President Clinton had oral sex with a young intern in the Oval Office while he talked on the phone with a California congressman about troop deployment;

who join liberal interest groups like People for the American Way and NARAL because they "care passionately" about their "right to privacy;"

who still think Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary;

who oppose airport and subway baggage searches;

who had no problem with Dan Rather and CBS's use of forged documents;

who are just fine with The Times' "fake but accurate" standard when President Bush or anyone else they oppose is concerned, but who would never accept "fake but accurate" if used by police and DAs to convict a career criminal who murdered a store clerk;

who love the ACLU because of "it's defense of due process," but want Carl Rove fired and his security clearance lifted immediately;

and who say, "What liberal media bias? Conservative are just making that up."

In short, the usual collection from "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," Move-on.org, the far Left, the Academy, and MSM.

Mark Steyn on Britain and what it must do

Mark Steyn is the kind of pundit I like. He speaks clearly and always leaves me thinking. Here he is in London Daily Telegraph yesterday saying things the ruling Establishment would just as soon leave unsaid:

It's not black (the bomber) and white (the rest of us); there's a lot of murky shades of grey in between: the terrorist bent on devastation and destruction prowls the streets, while around him are a significant number of people urging him on, and around them a larger group of cocksure young men gleefully celebrating mass murder, and around them a much larger group of people who stand silent at the acts committed in their name, and around them a mesh of religious and community leaders openly inciting mayhem, and around them a savvy network of professional identity-group grievance-mongers adamant that they're the real victims, and around them a vast mass of progressive elites too squeamish about ethno-cultural matters to confront reality, and around them a political establishment desperate to pretend this is just a managerial problem that can be finessed away with a new bureaucracy and a bit of community outreach.

And at the end of this chain of shades of grey is you. And, be honest, were you surprised at any of the developments of the past four weeks? Was it really shocking to you that young men born and bred in the United Kingdom are willing to take bombs on to the Tube and buses? Were you stunned that cells of Islamic terrorists from countries with which Britain has very few traditional or historical ties are living at taxpayers' expense in London council flats? Were you knocked for six to discover that bookstores in Leeds sell video games where Muslim men can play at slaughtering infidels? Were you flabbergasted to hear Birmingham's senior and famously "moderate" Islamic cleric, invited along by the West Midlands Police to their press conference, argue that the men named as responsible for the attacks were merely innocent commuters?

Not only has Britain been tolerent of terrorists and terror enablers in its midst, Steyn feels it's all but encouraged them to settle there.

In 2001, after a Dutch crackdown on benefit fraud, 10,000 Somalis moved from Holland to one East Midlands town - Leicester. Why wouldn't a Somali jihadist fancy his chances in such a country?

Steyn makes clear that defeating terrorism in Britain will require Prime Minister Blair to lead the country in a new direction. Failing to do so will lead to catastrophe.

Tony Blair talks a good talk, explaining the rationale for war far better than President Bush. But he now needs not just to talk but to act. In France, the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has just expelled another dozen Islamists. By contrast, Mr Blair seems paralysed. In the weeks after 9/11, Mr Bush rethought 40 years of US policy in the Middle East. The Prime Minister has a more difficult task: he has to rethink 40 years of British policy in Leicester and Bradford and Leeds and Birmingham.

He has to regain control of Britain's borders from the EU and of Britain's education system from the teachers' unions and of Britain's welfare programmes from wily Somalis and others. In 20 years' time, no one will remember whether Tony Blair abolished the House of Lords or foxhunting: that's poseur stuff. They'll judge him on whether or not he funked the central challenge of the times. If "the images of ruin and destruction" come to pass, it will not be because of the bombers but because of a state that lacked the cultural confidence to challenge them. (Bold added)

Steyn's column is here. (Registration may be required.)

The Times won't say what's up at Air America

Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed at Captains Quarters are all over a pair of growing scandals.

One involves liberal network Air America's receipt of hundreds of thousands of dollars from a New York non-profit. The money was supposes to benefit poor children and Alzheimer sufferers. The network can't say what happened to the money. Investigators are tracking the money trail. Al Franken is giving not very helpful interviews.

The second scandal is the refusal of major MSM news organizations to cover the Air America scandal. For instance, the New York Times has said nothing about the ongoing investigantion even as other New York papers - The Daily News, The Post and The Sun -have reported extensively on it. The Times' silence has many media types scratching their heads since in the past The Times has always been eager to trumpet Air America's activities. Malkin and Captain Ed are going to follow the scandals. Stay with them.

Meanwhile, if your not already familiar with the Air America scandal, here's part of an editorial from this morning's Washington Times which provides a good summery of what is known so far.

Here's what is known thus far. On Friday, Air America confirmed that last year it did in fact take money from a city-funded nonprofit that runs progams in the Bronx for children and Alzheimer's sufferers, and that it plans to pay the money back. It also revealed that it refuses to accept responsibility: First it blamed the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club, the nonprofit, calling the club's alleged behavior "absolutely disgraceful"; then it blamed Progress Media, a now-defunct Air America parent company, and said it had no obligation to pay the money back. But Air America announced it would pay the money back because it is "very disturbed that Air America Radio's good name could be associated with a reduction in services for young people."

It's also clear that Air America was the primary beneficiary of whatever "absolutely disgraceful" corruption occurred. As Jeannette Graves, president of Gloria Wise's executive committee, explained to the New York Sun this week, Mr. Cohen received more than $800,000 for himself and for Air America. She and her colleagues approved two $35,000 "loans" to Mr. Cohen plus another $167,000 for Air America because "he had thrown a tremendously successful fund-raising affair for Gloria Wise in Manhattan last year." He was "a very wonderful young man" who "left a very favorable impression." The rest of the transfers apparently happened without Mrs. Graves' knowledge: Someone approved a $213,000 loan with Mrs. Graves' name rubber-stamped on it plus a whopping $400,000 wire transfer.

Sounds serious. Do you thing Sen. Schumer will want to take a look?

Cultural tolerance cuts both ways

David Davis, the leading candidate to succeed Michael Howard as Britain's Conservative Party leader, writes today in the Daily Telegraph (registration may be required):

Let us be clear. Non-Muslims have obligations to their Muslim fellow citizens - to strive for equal opportunities for all, to accept the mainstream version of Islam as a part of society, and to reject the vile racism of the BNP (extremist, anti-immigrant party - ed.) and its like. But Muslims in turn have obligations: not simply to condemn terror, as one Labour MP put it, but to confront it.

Most Britons, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, will accept, even welcome, what Davis is saying.

But Davis' words are sure to draw objections from his country's multiculti far Left which typically supports what's worst and opposes what's good. It's been for the Bolsheviks, for Stalin, for Hitler when Stalin made a pact with him, for Mao and Che, for the Islamic fundamentalists, and for Castro's Cuba and North Korea. It's been against the Marshall Plan, against NATO, against defending South Korea, and against the Anglo-American and Euro-American alliances.

Unlike many British political leaders reluctant to act unless they can persuade the far Left "to join with us," Davis moves on and offers specific proposals to implement the principles he sets out.

Al-Qa'eda's long-term ambition is to eliminate moderate Islam altogether. It is therefore in the interests of moderate Muslims to support such measures as the extension of stop and search, the closing down of websites which support terror, the barring from Britain of clerics who support terrorist activity, and the licensing of visiting clerics.

To Britain's Muslim religious leaders Davis says:

Religious leaders have a special responsibility when those who commit crimes claim to be motivated by religion. We must acknowledge that there are good imams and bad imams. Most preach the true Muslim faith in a manner consistent with the society in which they live. Others, though, do not represent Islam properly and fail to understand the conventions of British society. Indeed, their aim is to destroy it. The Government must do more to encourage good imams to train here in Britain. Muslims themselves should help root out the bad ones.

Davis also has a message for all Britons:

Britain has a proud history of tolerance and respect towards people of different views, faiths and backgrounds. But we should not flinch from demanding the same tolerance and respect for the British way of life.

Making an unflinching demand for the same tolerance and respect Britain has shown others will require a course adjustment by Britain's ruling establishment. Let's hope it can make that adjustment. Davis seems determined to see that it does.

Unknown to most American's, Davis is obviously a person to watch. I'm now very interested in the Conservative party leadership election. I'll post more on it tomorrow.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.com

Good news for most but not all

The AP reports:

Consumers rediscovered their appetite for shopping in June, boosting spending by a strong 0.8 percent. It was fresh testament to the economy's momentum as it headed into the third quarter.

The AP goes on to report other good economic news, including personal income growing "at a nice clip of 0.5 percent" and factory orders up "a solid 1 percent."

While you and I may cheer the news, it must be a tough day for Princeton economics professor and NY Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Krugman keeps assuring his readers the economy is really in bad shape, mostly because of President Bush and his policies. They appear to believe him.

But Krugman’s got to know that time is running out on him. Even the most faithful NY Times readers start to catch on eventually. And the economic news has been good for years.

So what's Krugman to do? I don't know, but he always comes up with something.

Maybe this time Krugman will claim America's economy would be about like France's (11 percent unemployment, stagnant GDP growth, etc.) if we, like the French, put family and vacation time ahead of economic pursuits.

Whoops! That's right; Krugman’s already made those claims in a recent column.( Times registration, free, may be required)

Well anyway, I'm sure the former Enron consultant will think of something.

Bonne chance, Paul.

A question for some Democrats

Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett is the Democrat candidate in today's special election to fill the U. S. House seat in Ohio's 2nd district which former Rep. Rob Portman, a Republican, vacated to become U. S. trade representative.

Hackett has offered himself as an antiwar candidate but he seems more an "I hate Bush" candidate. From the Washington Post (Aug. 1):

Hackett has harshly criticized President Bush for his July 2003 "bring 'em on" comment about Iraqi insurgents, saying such talk only added to the danger faced by U.S. forces.

"That's the most incredibly stupid comment I've ever heard a president of the United States make," Hackett told USA Today. "He cheered on the enemy." Hackett has also referred to the president as "a chicken hawk ... a person who advocates war in a cavalier way."

Hackett's also told voters he thinks the President is "a son of a bitch."

Do Democrats like Hackett and party chairman Howard Dean, who's called Bush "the enemy," realize they sound an awful lot like some of the people who were attacking President Kennedy just before Dallas?

This made me smile

(This made me smile are posts about things that - made me smile. I hope they do the same for you.)

Instapundit posts parts of a reader's comments on the pretty awful FX series, Over There.

The reader ends with:

I couldn't even finish the show, and as I write this it is playing in the background, and I hear someone screaming in agony. I wasn't aware the show was filmed in front of a live studio audience.

Up next:Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.

To North Carolina's newest blogger: Welcome

North Carolina has a new blogger. She's Melanie Sill, executive editor and senior vice president for news at Raleigh's News & Observer.

Her blog is The Editor's Blog. You can visit here.

As JinC regulars know, I'm a frequent N&O critic. But in honor of Melanie's joining the blogosphere today, I've unilateraly declared a JinC moritorium on criticism of the N&O effective until midnight tonight.

Welcome and good luck, Melanie.

A "don't miss" at Mudville Gazette

I visit Greyhawk and his Mrs. at Mudville Gazette at least once a day. Here's another example of why: Greyhawk’s latest post, “A Vicious Circle.”

Greyhawk first tells us about a journalist who was nearly shot and killed by American troops at a checkpoint in Baghdad. He then quotes from the journalist's report:

Afterward I asked their captain how close they had come to killing us. He still had the safety off his M-16, his finger still curled around the trigger. He twitched it imperceptibly. "That close," he said. Had I not been there, but just my Iraqi colleagues or had the driver panicked and reversed or even had they been just a little farther away, no doubt I would not be writing this now. An ending that unfortunately many Iraqis have already suffered, shot at checkpoints and roadstops by jumpy troops, mistaken for possible suicide bombers, bombed by aircraft with faulty targeting information. All those things have indeed happened.

But how often, really? The answer: not very often, in fact. And not nearly often enough to make the 150,000 U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq the leading scourge of Iraq's civilians. That dishonor goes, hands down, to the insurgents. Even one incident is bad, of course, and there have been many. But civilian killings by U.S. troops are not nearly as common as the critics of the war in Iraq would like us to believe. It has become an article of faith among them that American troops have been slaughtering Iraqi civilians indiscriminately, and that one of the consequences of the war has been an unconscionable loss of life among the civilian population. It just isn't true.

I was surprised to learn for whom the journalist works and where his report appears.

The journalist's report and Greyhawk's commentary are outstanding.

And there's much more to the post. It's a "don't miss." The link's here.

The Washington Post withheld information

In his July 24 column Washington Post ombudsman Michael Getler responded to reader complaints about the Post's withholding information the police had released to the public concerning four men suspected of committing a series of robberies and killing two people. According to Getler:

(The story) reported that one of the robbers shot and killed Herminio Moscoso, a 26-year-old father of two, as he came to the aid of his younger brother, who had a gun put to his head by one of the four men who had surrounded him. About 15 minutes later, the men fatally shot William Everette Miller, a 46-year-old mechanic, as he tried to get away from the robbers at a gas station where he had gone to get cigarettes. After the two murders, the four men committed two more robberies that same morning.

The story reported that: "Police are looking for the gunmen, described as being in their late teens or early twenties, driving a newer-model tan or light-colored sedan."

The news release put out by the Prince George's County Police Department was more specific. It said: "The four suspects are described as black males, possibly late teens or early twenties. One of the suspects is about 5'7", 22-25 years old, wearing a gray long sleeve T-shirt, and cornrow hairstyle. The suspect's vehicle is described as a newer model tan or beige/light colored sedan." The Post did not report the race of the suspects or the details that were available on one of them.

When I asked editors about this, they cited the paper's guidelines on race and relevancy. The guidelines say: "In general, race and ethnic background should not be mentioned unless they are clearly relevant. They are obviously relevant in stories about civil rights issues, the problems or achievements of minority groups, cultural history and racial conflict. They are also relevant and should be used in crime stories when we have enough specific identifying information to publish a police description of a suspect who is being sought."

Metro editors said it was their "view that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black men about 5'7" with cornrows between ages 22-25 in Prince George's and (nearby) D.C. That is not specific enough detail to avoid a mass of innocent black men being 'suspects.' "

Metro's top editor, Robert McCartney, said, "This strikes me as a judgment call: How specific does the description need to be before we provide the identifying information?" Our experienced editors, he said, "thought this call was the right one, given Post Stylebook guidelines."

McCartney’s suppression of information made it harder for the public to help identify the suspects. It placed lawful citizens of every race at greater risk. Some Stylebook!

Getler goes on to quote a reader who puts some light on the Post.

Here's what a reader in Prince George's County said: "There are evidently four violent murderers of random civilians at large in the county in which I live."

He then cited The Post's description of the suspects and added, "That is not true. The police are looking for people using a more specific description than that, one that includes race. The Post took that information out. I know The Post usually defends this practice by saying that 'four white teenagers' [or African American or Asian American or Latino teenagers] provides information that is no more useful than saying 'two teenagers.' Maybe. The police certainly disagree. I think I do, too.

But once you've added the fact that the murderers are driving a 'newer model tan or light-colored sedan,' any additional descriptive factor at all becomes powerful, enough for investigators to do effective work with. It's also useful information for those of us filling up our gas tanks at 7 a.m. near where the robbers/murderers prowl.

"The Post's decision to strip useful identifying information out of its crime stories strikes me not only as empirically wrong but also paternalistic," he said. "I suppose it would be ad hominem for me to add that those of us who live in the areas suffering waves of violent crime care more about this stuff than do senior editors."

Getler ends with this:

Some people who write may have racial motives. But others seem to express genuine concern at Post editing practices and I find myself, even more than in the previous case, in agreement with them.

I wrote four years ago that the reality that newspaper editors at times feel different constraints than police departments about what should be made public about crimes is something that needs steady scrutiny.

But there is something about withholding information that the police make public that is troubling in a case such as this. It seems to me that the chance that it may be helpful is what's important and that people will understand that.

Getler and the reader have it right.

And one more thing: Isn't it time to revise the Post's Stylebook?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Look how low the Associated Press will go

Here's part of the Associated Press' account of President Bush's July 31 visit to the National Scout Jamboree:

It was Bush's third attempt to travel to Fort A. P. Hill, the Army base hosting the Jamboree where Scouts are trying to end their 10-day gathering with cheery memories of mountain biking, fishing, scuba diving and trading patches with newfound Scouting friends across the nation.

On Wednesday, scouting enthusiasts waited hours in the heat for Bush, who later canceled his appearance because of threatening storms. Scouts began collapsing from high humidity and temperatures in the high 90s. More than 300 people were treated for heat-related illnesses.

Bush's second attempt to visit the Jamboree was postponed from Thursday at the Scouts' request. Officials wanted to review safety procedures for large crowds and replenish water and other supplies.

The illnesses came as the Jamboree participants were still trying to overcome the deaths on Monday of four adult Scout leaders who were electrocuted in front of several Scouts when a metal pole at the center of a large dining tent touched power lines. The tent caught fire and the men burned. An investigation into the accident is under way.

The day before, a volunteer was taken to a hospital where he died of an apparent heart attack.

"I appreciate the rain check," Bush said.

The Associated Press' placement of the president's "I appreciate the rain check" remark is what's often called "a set up."

We've all seen it done. You take what a person says and place it in a context in which the person really didn't say it. The person winds up looking foolish, mean, or whatever you intended.

In the case of the AP's story, it takes events from days past and puts a single sentence the president said today in the midst of those events with obvious intent.

Why do the AP and other MSM news organizations keep distorting what President Bush says and does? Remember Dan Rather, CBS and the forged documents? And remember The New York Times telling us "fake but accurate" was OK where the president reputation was concerned?

And why do MSM news organizations keep saying, "You can trust us. We have no bias."

Who believes them?

Orwell for the "London caused by Iraq" folks

To all those saying that in one way or another the London bombings are the understandable outcome of American action in Iraq, I offer some words of George Orwell's:

One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man would be such a fool.

In Notes on Nationalism, 1945

Hats off for London's police

xI visit London about twice a year. My admiration for the police there has always been high, but since the 7/7 bombings it's soared. Their professionalism and courage have been outstanding.

Daily, London's police are strapping on bullet-proof vests, searching suspicious packages, chasing down terrorists who might turn to kill them, and entering places they know may be booby-trapped.

They're doing all that while also carrying on with the normal but demanding police functions of providing public safety, traffic control, and emergency health service in a complex city with what is now an international population of almost 8 million.

London's police do it all under the constant watch of a media that will harshly exploit any mistake they make.

Hats off for London's police.

Are there trolls in the Grey Lady's newsroom?

The New York Times (online) has an long article (Registration required. It's free.) about House passage of the energy bill.

The headline: House Passes Energy Bill

But after 19 paragraphs dealing with the energy bill, The Times makes an unexplained shift to a different piece of legislation in the Senate.

Here are paragraphs 19 and 20:

Critics of the energy bill continued to condemn it on Wednesday, saying the tax breaks rewarded oil and gas companies that do not require taxpayer-financed incentives. They pointed to a late addition to the measure that provided $500 million to underwrite research into drilling in deep water or producing gas from unconventional sources.

As the Senate concentrated on legislation to protect gun manufacturers, its passage was virtually guaranteed Wednesday when Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, used a procedural maneuver to sharply limit efforts by Democrats to amend the bill.

The rest of article continues to report on the gun bill.

What explains the shift from reporting on a House energy bill to a Senate gun bill?

Are there trolls in the Grey Lady's newsroom?

What were The Seattle Times reporters thinking?

Today's Seattle Times online edition has a lengthy article on the sentencing of terrorist Ahmed Ressam in a Seattle federal court for attempting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the millennium eve.

At the very end of the article, reporters Hal Bernton and Sara Jane Green stretch and drop this "Oh, by the way" on readers:

Recently, Ressam was asked by a U.S. marshal about the London bombing.

"It's terrible — it shouldn't have happened," Ressam said. "But what about the U.S. bombing in Iraq, and innocent civilians being killed?"

Why do Berenton and Green stretch for the unsourced marshal story? And why give the last word to Ressam? Why not a last comment from a citizen who's glad Ressam is now behind bars.

Most importantly, why give Ressam an opportunity to assert the moral equivalence claim so often made by terrorists and their sympathizers on the left?

Here are three possible explanations:

1) Bernton and Green were doing the kind of reporting they know will get them noticed by recruiters at the big MSM news organizations where moral equivalence is the accepted point of view.

2) Bernton and Green wanted an ending that would be well received by readers in politically liberal Seattle.

3) Bernton and Green really believe what they did was just good, unbiased reporting. The questions are invalid.

Explanation three, if true, would trouble me the most. How about you? Please share your thoughts.

I'm sending this post to Berenton and Green. I'll post any response they make, keeping the last word for myself.

The Krugman Truth Squad is working today

Paul Krugman. The Bush-hating former Enron consultant. Always talking down the economy. Writes op-eds for The New York Times. Loves Michael Moore.

Didn't The Times’ former public editor, Dan Okrant, have some things to say about Krugman in his final public editor column?

You bet. Here's part of what Okrant said:

Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.

One of those who picks up on Krugman’s “shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers” is Donald Luskin, head of the Krugman Truth Squad and National Review contributer.

At National Review Online, Luskin responds today in fine Truth Squad fashion to Krugman’s July 22 op-ed. Luskin begins:

China's announcement last week that it was abandoning its decade-old fixed exchange rate between the Chinese yuan and the U.S. dollar was world-shaking economic news. But for Paul Krugman — America's most dangerous liberal pundit — it's only an occasion for more of his usual left-wing economic doomsaying, leavened with crude humor based on ethnic stereotypes.

Krugman began his New York Times column Friday saying,

Thursday's statement from the People's Bank of China, announcing that the yuan is no longer pegged to the dollar, was terse and uninformative — you might say inscrutable.

One assumes that if the nation in question had been an African one, the guardians of politically correct speech at the Times would have been more alert. Surely they would never have allowed Krugman to say the announcement had, “you might say, natural rhythm”?

Krugman stoops to cheap attempts at humor because he has no grasp of what's really going on with China's currency. His characterization of China's currency policies is simply:

To keep China's currency from rising, the Chinese government has been buying up huge quantities of dollars and investing the proceeds in U.S. bonds.

Krugman offers no explanation for why China's currency should rise in the absence of their preventing it from doing so — he treats it as a foregone conclusion. And what he calls China's “buying up” dollars is exactly the opposite of what's been happening for the last decade — dollars have been raining in on China from foreign investors eager to set up business there and needing yuan to do so.

China has simply accepted those dollars and issued yuan in exchange for them — at a constant rate of exchange designed not to “keep China's currency from rising” but rather to guarantee its value. For a decade, China has pegged the yuan to the dollar at an official exchange rate of about 8.28 yuan per dollar. Pegging the currency to the dollar has set an objective standard of value for it — just as a peg to gold once set such a standard for the dollar itself.

I think you'll appreciate Luskin's column unless you're Paul Krugman or one of his Bush-hating acolytes.

Question time at Mudville Gazette

In Britain's Parliament, Prime Minister's question time is a period set aside each week during which any member can stand and ask the PM a question. It's an ancient practice originally intended to hold the government to truthful account by means of sharp, fact-driven questions the PM and government would rather ignore.

In opposition during the 1930s, Winston Churchill used question time to expose the government's drift and appeasement in the face of first, the Nazis' insurgency in Germany, and then, after their takeover of Germany, their preparations for further conquests.

Today, question time is used mostly as a PR opportunity ("Can the Prime Minister assure me and this House that the tremendous strides made in health services since he and I came to Parliament will continue?").

In a post here, Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette reminds us of how important and revealing a pointed, fact-driven question can be.

Greyhawk first references the abominations of Pennsylvania's Lt. Gov. Knoll. She went uninvited to the funeral of a Marine killed in Iraq. She passed out her business card and told a member of the Marine's family the state's government was opposed to the war. Then, she stepped before the TV cameras for some "face time."

Greyhawk's post links to Michelle Malkin who provides detail on Knoll's abominations. And then he asks his question.

Don't miss it.

Latest New York Times error. It's huge.

The following correction appears in today’s New York Times.

An article on Saturday about a federal judge's order regarding photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal misstated a deadline and the response by Defense Department lawyers. The government was given until Friday to black out some identifying details in the material, not to release it. Defense Department lawyers met that deadline, but asked the court to block the public release of the materials. They did not refuse to cooperate with an order for the materials' release.

You can find the article here. (NYT free registration may be required)

Here’s the headline Times’ editors gave the article:

Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos

But the correction says nothing about the false headline, or how and why it was put in The Times.

Here’s the article’s first sentence:

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

We know now that sentence, like the headline, is false. But again, as with the headline, we don’t know how or why something so manifestly false was written and published in The Times because so far The Times is refusing to say.

Folks, if the federal government refuses to comply with a court order, that’s a really big deal.

And when a major newspaper reports the government is refusing to comply with a court order it’s also a really big deal, not to be dismissed with one sentence at the end of a one paragraph correction noting other errors in the article.

The Times’ faithful readers may not expect a full and honest explanation of how such a monumental mistake was made, but thoughtful readers surely deserve one.

Blogger and attorney John Hinderaker notes that Times reporter Kate Zernike talked to a representative of the ACLU which brought the suit seeking release of the photos and videotapes; however she:

“quoted no representative of the government, and apparently talked to none; if she had, she would have realized that the entire premise for her story was incorrect. So millions of people were wrongly told that the "Government"--i.e., the Bush administration--had "defied" the order of a federal judge. If true, this would have been a noteworthy story. But it was a complete falsehood.”

Hinderaker is absolutely right.

Why didn’t Times’ editors think about the things he’s pointing out before they ran the story?

We need answers. A single sentence stuck at the end of a correction won’t do for something of this magnitude.

Hat Tip: Mudville Gazette

Pennsylvania pols act to save their hides

First, Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Knoll crashed the funeral of Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, killed fighting in Iraq.

Then she used the funeral to distribute her business cards, tell a member of the S/Sgt. Goodrich's that the state's government opposed the war, and, of course, get face time before the TV cameras.

The last was not easy since a large crowd attended, but Knoll managed it.

Later, apparently surprised that S/Sgt. Goodrich's family would resent any of her actions, Knoll became "unavailable" for days as public outrage mounted.

Now, Knoll and her political ally, Gov. Ed. Rendell, are in full damage control mode.

They appear most concerned to protect their own hides. That most likely explains why Knoll has failed so far to issue a full and unequivocal apology to the Goodrich family while Rendell has made excuses for her.

Gov. Rendell also appears to have seen an opportunity to shore up his liberal base for next year's election. How else to explain his saying, "It's not the business of state government to support the war."

Michelle Malkin is on top of the latest developments in this sad story of political leaders who appear out of touch with a lot of what's important to people who love America.

Is Roberts now or has he ever been a member?

Michelle Malkin calls the Left's opposition to Judge Roberts a "Parody unto itself." She links to a raft of bloggers picking up on what MSM and the Dems are trying to convince people is a serious and fair examination of Roberts.

At Mudville Gazette Mrs. Greyhawk’s Dawn Patrol post links to a lengthy Washington Post story (950 plus words) asking whether Judge John Roberts was ever a member of the conservative Federalist Society (see under MSM Reports On Politics).

MSM and Democrats’ efforts to determine whether Roberts is now or ever has been a member of a conservative legal organization is quite a contrast to how, for more than a half-century, they've reacted whenever anyone asked if a person was a member of the leftist National Lawyers Guild, considered by many a front for the Communist Party USA.

A question about anyone's Guild membership would immediately lead to MSM and Democrats charging the questioner with "McCarthyism," “smearing,” and "assigning guilt by association."

Even today, with the Guild alive, well, and still misty for Che, you'll get yourself labeled a “red-baiter” if you ask, “Is he/she a member of the Guild.”

Why is it wrong to ask about Guild membership? Well, we've been told, in a free society you don't judge people by who they associate with, and that includes their professional memberships.

But asking about membership in a conservative legal organization? Well, that's different; and it's just fine. In fact, MSM and the Dems say it's their duty to the America people to inquire.

Watching the MSM and Dems pursue the Federalist Society question has me thinking of the song classic, "That Old Devil Moon." Only here we have that old double standard.

Can you quess who said it?

No prizes. And no tallying responses at this low tech blog. But then you don't have to click anything to find the answer; it follows right after the question.

Ready?

Who said:

Every time terrorists strike anywhere all of us who believe in democracy and the rule of law must stand together and affirm our firm commitment to fight this scourge resolutely and unitedly.

a) New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd

b) New York Times columnist Paul Krugman

c) New York Times editor Frank Rich

d) India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

e) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)

f) Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia)

g) Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer: The Prime Minister.The quote is drawn from his acceptance speech of July 11 delivered following his receiving an honorary doctorate from his alma mater, Oxford University.

But you all knew it was the Prime Minister, didn't you?

Way too easy?

Sure, and that's why there's no prize.

I hope you start the week smiling.

Hat Tip: Instapundit.com

Wise words in The London Times

(Welcome visitors from Michelle Malkin, Mudville Gazette and other blogs. Look around all you like.)

In the July 24 London Times (registration may be necessary), Janet Daly responds to events in London, providing clarity and wisdom you rarely see in newspapers such as the NY Times. Here’s part of what she says (For ease of reading, I’ve broken her op-ed into shorter paragraphs).

It was probably bound to happen — if not now, then eventually. There is an all-out war on the streets and almost inevitably somebody was going to be killed by the authorities who was believed to be implicated but then turned out not to be.

Given the peculiarly ruthless tactic of suicide bombing, who could take the risk of allowing someone who seemed to be a plausible suspect to ignite himself in a public place?

Given that we are up against an enemy who states categorically that he “loves death” as opposed to the weak and decadent West which so pathetically clings to life, how could anyone dare to assume that the likely man who chooses to run to the London Underground rather than stop on order is blameless?

The Metropolitan police say this shooting of an apparently innocent man in Stockwell is a “tragedy”, as indeed it is.

But what would the scale of the tragedy have been if they had given him the benefit of the doubt and got it wrong? How many nanoseconds do you have in which to make the choice? And what, as a law enforcement officer, is the inescapable priority?

The Muslim extremists have produced something of a genuine martyr: a victim of what — if he proves to have been Muslim — may be described as the West’s Islamophobia, when he was a victim of the terrorist campaign itself.

We must not equivocate about this. The outrage of the Muslim community will be genuine. The protests of the civil liberties lobby have so far been commendably muted, but the anti-war brigade, who will find yet more grounds for condemning our foreign policy, will be more vociferous than ever.

But we are not to blame — that is, we as a society, we as a democracy, we as a population. We must not lose our grip on the truth: that Britain is a free, tolerant and generous country that has bent over backwards to accommodate its culturally diverse migrants.

So “We must not equivocate?” And “Britain is a free, tolerant and generous country that has bent over backwards to accommodate its culturally diverse migrants?”

Can we ever convince most of the PCs, Democrats and Leftists on both sides of the pond of that?

I hope, so but it’ll be a tall order.

Daly closes with this:

The terrorists have provided the irreducible axiom for this confrontation: “We love death; you love life.” What happened at Stockwell Tube station was a hideous mistake but one that was made in the name of protecting life. There can be no moral equivalence between that killing and the deliberate murder of innocents that was the object of the successful terrorist attack of July 7 and the mercifully unsuccessful one of July 21. Life — and the preciousness of it — is what this is all about. Somehow, we have to hold on to that.

Yes, we do. It'a an important part of why we fight no matter what Sens. Clinton, Durbin, and Kennedy, and NPR, the BBC, the NY and LA Times et al tell us.

There’s probably no chance the NY or LA Times or any of the other major liberal dailies here will publish Daly’s op-ed. That’s truly sad and needs to change.

Hat Tip: Realclearpolitics.com

Iraq vet disputes MSM's war reporting

Lt. David M. Lucas has just returned from Iraq where he served more than a year as a platoon leader with the 10th Mountain Division. Today, he has an op-ed in the Knoxville News Sentinel (A Soldier speaks out: The good military is doing often not reported, July 24).

Lucas' main point:

I know that the war my men and I fought is a totally different war than the one I see being reported by almost the entire media. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are generally overwhelmed by the massive anti-war/anti-Bush crowd.

Lucas offers many first hand examples of what he's talking about.

How do MSM reporters manage to miss so much and distort so much of what they do report?

Lucas also has some words for "Support the troops. Bring them home" people.

"Let's support our troops. Bring them home." Please don't ever say those words again. Nothing is so disheartening to our troops who are in harm's way than to hear our own citizens say things like that.

He concludes with this:

Don't pretend to support troops by trying to undercut their efforts at the same time. Just go to bed at night and pray for their safety and thank God that they are there to protect you and your family, no matter your beliefs.

Do the "Support our troops. Bring them home" people really fool anyone, even themselves?

We need to hear more from people like Lt. Lucas who have been in Iraq and "done it."

Thank you, Lt. Lucas for your service as a soldier and a writer. And congratulations on your Bronze Star (Lucas was awarded the Bronze Star for his role in the rescue of two Egyptian hostages in Baghdad in February. You can read about it at this Mudville Gazette post).

Hat Tip: Instapundit.com

Democrats' military abuse just got worse

Sen. Ted Kennedy responded to Abu Ghraib with a Senate floor speech accusing America's military of running the same kind of prison system Saddam ran. Sen. Dick Durbin compared our military at Guantanamo to Nazis, communists who ran the Soviet gulag, and Pol Pot's murderers of 2 million. And an angry Sen. Hillary Clinton had no problem with Durbin attacks while demanding Karl Rove apologize for saying liberals offered a soft response to 9/11.

Given the above, an American who respects the military might think, "There isn't much else Democrats can do by way of abusing our military."

Well, one Democrat officeholder just thought of something else. It's a shocker even by Clinton/Kennedy/Durbin standards. A report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette begins:

The family of a Marine who was killed in Iraq is furious with (Pennsylvania's) Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll for showing up uninvited at his funeral this week, handing out her business card and then saying "our government" is against the war.

Rhonda Goodrich of Indiana, Pa., said yesterday that a funeral was held Tuesday at a church in Carnegie for her brother-in-law, Staff Sgt. Joseph Goodrich, 32.

She said he "died bravely and courageously in Iraq on July 10, serving his country."

In a phone interview, Goodrich said the funeral service was packed with people "who wanted to tell his family how Joe had impacted their lives."

Then, suddenly, "one uninvited guest made an appearance, Catherine Baker Knoll."

Michelle Malkin not only links to the Post-Gazette report; she has links to other bloggers posts and some thoughts of her own.

So far Knoll has been unavailable for comment. There's also been no comment from her fellow Democrat, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell. Most likely they are available to each other and using the time to work with aides to put a cover story together.

I couldn't find an e-mail address for Knoll but I found one for Rendell here.

Rendell, a former Democrat Party National Committee chair, strikes me as a sensible person. Ask him to pass on your thoughts to his political ally. And be sure to ask him if she was correct in saying "our (Pennsylvania's)government" is against the war.

Blogger identifies Raleigh News & Observer bias

Do you think Raleigh's News & Observer confines its Democrat party passions to the editorial page and leaves them out of its news columns?

If you're about to say, "Yes," hold on.

You might want to first take a look at the posts blogger Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh is putting up week after week. Here's just a part of one post:

Just imagine if the Republican Congress failed to pass a budget and Pres. Bush stepped in to mandate spending in areas he deemed important. The N&O headline writers would have a field day:

GOP Congress fails again to pass budget

Bush disregards Constitution in power play

Republican infighting causes budget grief

But here in N.C., the Dem. legislature has failed to pass a budget for the 3rd week. So the governor has usurped legislative powers to spend money on his pet projects. And can the N&O find one critic of this move for their front page story? No. But they do run this beauty from Dem. House Speaker Jim Black, "He's an education governor, and I'm an education speaker." Thanks Jim.

Does the writer find one taxpayer group to comment on how the Gov. is spending our money? No. But the N&O does quote one of the superintendents of schools who has received more money in the past and will get additional funds now from Easley, "things are really beginning to pay off."

You see what I mean about Scott?

After you visit Right in Raleigh, why not ask the N&O why it didn't tell us more about that school superintendent who thinks "things are really beginning to pay off?"

Pay off? What pay off?

If Ms. Roberts, why not Ms. Grunwald?

Can a wife's views on a public issue(s) tell us anything about what her husband thinks or how he might act?

MSM news organizations seem to be saying, "It depends on who we're talking about."

How else to explain the intense attention being paid to Jane Roberts, wife of Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts, while Mandy Grunwald, wife of Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, is virtually ignored?

On July 21, the LA Times ran a major story detailing Jane Roberts' activities as an attorney opposed to abortion. The Times told readers:

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

On July 22, a Knight Ridder story about Judge Roberts said:

There are a number of clues suggesting that Roberts - a devout Roman Catholic whose wife does pro bono legal work for the Washington-based anti-abortion group Feminists for Life - personally opposes abortion.

While eager to inform and speculate concerning Jane Roberts' influence on her husband, MSM have been reluctant to even mention that longtime Democratic party activist and Sen. Clinton confidant Mandy Grunwald is Matt Cooper's wife.

I can't recall a single story about Grunwald's possible influence on Cooper in my paper, Raleigh's News&Observer. Has your paper said anything about it?

For sure, there's been no LA Times story that began:

A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But partisan politics are figuring prominently in the Independent Council's investigation into who disclosed Valerie Palme's CIA employment, with Matthew Cooper a major figure in the investigation. And with Cooper's politics unclear, Republicans and others expressed concern today that his wife's views might suggest Cooper also embraced efforts to overturn Rove.

MSM might explain their silence concerning Grunwald's possible influence on Cooper's reporting by noting that journalists observe standards and ethics that forbid them from letting a spouse's politics influence their reporting. Hence, there's "no story to tell" about Cooper-Grunwald.

But don't attorneys observe standards and ethics that forbid letting a spouse's politics influence them when they argue or judge law? Yet MSM feel there's a Roberts-Roberts story to tell.

Why such different MSM treatment of Jane Roberts and Mandy Grunwald?

I think it’s because most MSM have one standard for reporting on Republicans and another for Democrats.

How else would you explain it?

Latest London bombings: Two questions and comments

It's good to hear the latest terrorist attack in London has done little physical damage.

There will of course be some predictable responses:

1) Who will be the first on Britain's Left to say, "See, more fallout from Iraq, and our teaming up with the Americans?"

There are so many Leftists that make those apologies, it's hard to say who

2) How long will it be before American MSM news organizations run stories quoting terror apologists touting the "Iraq made them do it. And careful not to get too close to the Americans" lines without any mention of people or facts disputing the apologists?

Well, this is Thursday. I'm guessing we'll see the American MSM carrying such stories by Saturday afternoon online and in Sunday's papers.

Stay tuned.

When Democrats demand "more information"

Most observers agree Democrats will seek to slow Judge Roberts' nomination process, hoping that someone somewhere uses the extra time to find a "nomination-killer."

One delay tactic senate judiciary committee Democrats are sure to use is a request for documents Roberts wrote while working in the White House Counsel's office during the Reagan years, and in the Solicitor-General's office during the first Bush presidency. They'll claim, "We can't really evaluate this candidate without them."

Democrats used the tactic when Miquel Estrada, who had served in the Solicitor General's office, was nominated to the appellate court. As expected the White House and Justice Department refused to release the documents, citing their privileged status.

At the time, all seven former solicitors general, four Republicans and three Democrats including Archibald Cox, sent a letter to the committee chair, Sen. Pat Leahy, expressing their opposition to the committee Democrats' request.

"Any attempt to intrude into the Office's highly privileged deliberations would come at the cost of the Solicitor General's ability to defend vigorously the United States' litigation interests -- a cost that also would be borne by Congress itself."

Their letter ended:

"Although we profoundly respect the Senate's duty to evaluate Mr. Estrada's fitness for the federal judiciary, we do not think that the confidentiality and integrity of internal deliberations should be sacrificed in the process."

With Democrats then in the majority, they were able to disregard the former attorneys general's letter and deny Estrada a vote, claiming the government's refusal to release the documents as their reason.

Estrada, who had received the American Bar Association's highest rating by unanimous vote of its committee on judicial nominations, waited 2 years for some resolution. There being none, he asked that his nomination be withdrawn.

The outcome in Roberts' case will be very different. The Democrats will make their documents requests. The White House and Justice will make no comment until they've "read and considered" the requests. There'll be some back-and-forthing which should buy the Democrats a little delay time.

During that relatively brief delay, the former solicitor generals' letter will be a great asset to Roberts' supporters as they explain to the American people why the documents should not be made public.

Then, after an exchange of letters, some press conferences, lots of intemperate speeches from certain senators, and screams from People for the American Way, Republicans will say it's time to move on. Roberts will get his vote.

Republicans are in the majority now. Elections matter.

A facsimile copy of the former attorneys general's letter is here in pdf form.

No wonder Sen. Schumer's upset

Ed Morrissey at Captainsquartersblog.com has an excellent post on the Roberts nomination. Ed notes that New York's Senator Charles Schumer is one of those especially upset with the President's nomination of Justice Roberts for the Supreme Court.

The following may help explain why. It's part of an answer Roberts gave to Schumer during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Roberts nomination to the appellate bench.

My own judicial philosophy begins with an appreciation of the limited role of a judge in our system of divided powers. Judges are not to legislate and are not to execute the laws. . . . My judicial philosophy accordingly insists upon some rigor in ensuring that judges properly confine themselves to the adjudication of the case before them, and seek neither to legislate broadly not to administer the law generally in deciding that case.

Maalox is good for heartburn, Senator

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin.com and Captainsquartersblog.com

Powerline guys react to Robert's nomination

The attorneys at Powerlineblog.com have a lot to say about Justice Roberts' nomination.

They say it in language non-lawyers can understand. They like the man and admire his professional work. They do a great job of explaining the important cases Roberts has been involved in as a litigator and justice on the D.C. appellate bench.

In case you don't have time to go to Powerline for a while, you should at least enjoy this John Hinderaker paragraph right now:

Pop the champagne corks, conservatives. Roberts is a fantastic choice, a brilliant and bulletproof conservative. And it was fun to see Pat Leahy and Chuck Schumer on television tonight; they looked just awful. After President Bush's terrific, upbeat presentation of Roberts, and Roberts' graceful, brief talk, Leahy and Schumer sounded like they had just dropped in from another planet. They were dour, hateful, and came across as sad and pathetic minions who have been sent on a hopeless mission by their bosses at "People for the American Way.

Cheers!

An excellent Wilson/Rove summary

Looking for an excellent Wilson/Rove summary?

Then read today's lead editorial in the Washington Times. It's detailed, understandable and dispassionate.

But be warned. The editorial's headline, "Knifing Rove, whitewashing Wilson-Palme," suggests it's a fire-breather.

If you have levelheaded friends who don't care for Carl Rove or President Bush and have followed the Wilson/Palme/Rove saga with interest, ask them to read the editorial and point out anything that's not true and fairly stated.

Will it be Justice Priscilla Owen?

Tom Goldstein at The Supreme Court Nomination Blog stand by his prediction that President Bush will nominate Appellate Court Justice Priscilla Owen.

Goldstein also comments and links to an article in The Hill on likely nominees.

Today was my first visit to The Supreme Court Nomination Blog. It's first-rate with many links to sites relevant to the nomination process including The White House and Senate Judiciary sites, interest group sites categorized by Liberal and Conservative, and many more. Take a look.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Some Novak reporting goes unchallenged

At latimes.com there's a story on the Wilson/Palme tale that's a classic hit piece. Primary targets: Rove and Libby. Objective: Hurt Bush.

But the Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallstein story does provide a surely unintended laugh in this sentence:

(Wilson) said a friend who saw Novak on the street reported that Novak told him, "Wilson is an asshole and his wife works for the CIA."

When Wilson pauses for breath, do you think he'll notice no one's challenging either of Novak findings?

Grand imam's statement is newsworthy

At Gulfnews.com you'll find an article that begins:

The grand imam of Egypt's Al Azhar Mosque, the Sunni world's most prestigious seat of learning, called on the people of Iraq to unite to rid the country of terrorists and urged other countries to help.

"The Iraqis, men, women, children and elderly people should unite and work solidly together to chase those evil terrorists everywhere until Iraq's land is purged of their filth and viciousness," Mohammad Saeed Tantawi said in a statement on Thursday.

"All other countries and individuals should extend help to Iraq to enable its people to exterminate those wantons and despots," Tantawi said.

Why aren't MSM news organizations paying more attention to the grand imam's statement?

Did anyone see it reported in the Raleigh News & Observer?

You can read the whole article here.

Hat Tip: Rightwingnews.com

On Wilson's story: Malkin gives no cover to MSM

Could you believe MSM news organizations are ignoring or underreporting details of the who, how and why of Valerie Palme's outing?

Michelle Malkin posts this morning with a link to an Andrew McCarthy article at NRO online: "Did the CIA 'Out' Valerie Palme?"

McCarthy points to important information regarding Palme that should be getting lots of MSM attention.

Malkin urges us to ask NY Times public editor Byron Calame why the Times isn't reporting on the information McCarthy provides.

Malkin's post has Calame's e-mail and snail mail addresses and phone number. Take a look. Then I think you'll go straight to McCarthy's article.

Outing of Time reporter's wife upsets many

(Welcome Mudville Gazette readers and others. This is a humor piece with some stuff made up. But the matter of Matt Cooper's wife being a Democratic activist and confidant of Senator Clinton is absolutely true; hence the links. I hope you enjoy my "reporting.")

Major MSM news organizations and Democrats are expected to demand an independent council investigation to determine the identity of the person or persons who outed Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper's wife, Clinton advisor and Democratic strategist Mandy Grunwald.

Neither Cooper nor Grunwald, described by the Washington Post as a "confidante" of Senator Hillary Clinton, was available for comment.

But highly placed MSM reporters and editors, who asked to remain anonymous, say they are shocked and outraged that Cooper's wife's identity was made public.

"We're not dealing here with a case of the public's right to know," one editor said. "Leaking Grunwald's name has jeopardized Cooper's credibility. And there's never a public right to know when what becomes known could hurt a reporter's credibility. Period. End of story."

One person who agreed to comment on the record was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He spoke following a news conference held in Senator Charles Schumer's office to announce Wilson's terms for book and movie rights to his autobiography.

"The deliberate and malicious leaking of this now irreparably harmed woman's name is nearly as great a crime as was the leaking of my wife's name," said Wilson.

Wilson pledged to do all he could to assure the appointment of an independent council, adding that if he was not selected for the post, a good choice would be New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

Hat Tip: Powerlineblog.com

NYT public editor ducks op-ed problem

Michelle Malkin links to NYT public editor Byron Calame's July 17 column which begins:

Upholding the journalistic integrity of The New York Times requires a lot of care.

That care apparently doesn't include responding to e-mails noting factual errors in a NYT op-ed column and requesting an explanation.

I've twice asked Calame to read and respond to my post: New York Times op-ed makes false claims.

The false claims appeared in a June 28 op-ed by Lucian K. Truscott IV in which he agrues that the Army lies to young officers, and therefore has trouble retaining them.

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it."

Truscott’s claims that the five future generals “endured the horrors of World War I trenches” and “made a pact with each other” are false, something he, as a West Point grad and grandson of one of the officers who was a friend of the other four, surely knows.

If you're saying to yourself that Eisenhower, Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr., one of World War II's great corps commanders, never went overseas during World War I; and that Marshall never saw combat while he was in France during WWI; and that their biographers have never said the five officers made a pact with one another, you'd be right on all counts.

So how can I get Calame and the Times to acknowledge the false claims presented as facts in an op-ed column?

Please take a look at my post and send along your suggestions.

Thanks, John

Iraq-Al Qaeda connections

NBC News is reporting that Iraq has today taken the first legal step to begin Saddam's trial. The trial will surely involve evidence of Saddam's contacts and cooperation with Al Qaeda.

The current Weekly Standard has a special report, The Mother of All Connections, detailing extensive Saddam-Al Qaeda connections going back to the 1980s. The connections were so strong that the Clinton administration, for example, publicly accused Saddam's Iraq of supplying Al Qaeda with chemical weapons expertise and material.

Palmetto Pundit posts concerning a report ABC News aired in the late 90s detailing Saddam-Al Qaeda connections. He links to audio and video versions as well as related posts by other bloggers.

Unfortunately, the Clinton administration's Saddam-Al Qaeda findings and the ABC News report are now ignored by most MSM news organizations.

Why doesn't ABC's News do an updated report on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connections? It would be timely given that the connections will be brought up during Saddam's trial.

In the meantime, take a look at Palmetto's post.

NBC's Russett plays softball with Time's Cooper

Just watched Tim Russett's NBC Meet the Press interview with Time reporter Matt Cooper concerning Wilson/Plame but mostly Rove. (Transcript will be available later.)

Russett first gave Cooper an open mike. He invited Cooper to read from a story he's written that will appear in tomorrow's Time magazine.

Then Russett began tossing softball questions. For example, "Where do you think this is leading?" He followed that up with other equally challenging questions: "How did you find the grand jury?" and "Will this effect your career?"

I think if Russett had had more time, he might have asked Cooper: "So Matt, will what's happening force you to change your vacation plans?"