Business Week knocks on Newmark's Door

JinC regulars know about Newmark's Door, NC State University Economics Professor Craig Newmark's blog where there are lots of short, informative and insightful posts spiced with a wit.

Well now Business Week Online has published his undergraduate recommended reading list.

There's one book on it, Price Theory and Applications, Sixth Ed. by Steven Landsburg, that sounds just a little too heavy for me.

On the other hand, there's

Getting Rich in America: Eight Simple Rules for Building a Fortune and a Satisfying Life by Dwight R. Lee and Richard B. McKenzie.

As the title indicates, this book explains how an average person can get "rich." There are no gimmicks or tricks, just sound advice firmly grounded in empirical and theoretical economics. The authors are leading academic economists.

Thanks, Craig. That's my kind of book.

Take a look at the list, folks, and at Newmark's Door.

Environmental groups impact on energy supplies

Has America become:

"a country of a million Walter Mittys driving 75 mph in their gas-guzzling Bushwhack-Safari sport-utility roadsters with a moose head on the hood, a country whose crude oil production has dropped 32 percent in the last 25 years but which will not drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for fear of disturbing the mating habits of caribou.?"

Charles Krauthammer thought so when he wrote the above 10 years ago.

Today Krauthammer says:

I wrote that during the '96 witch hunt for price gougers. Nothing has changed. Except that since then, U.S. crude oil production has dropped an additional 12.3 percent.

The drop in domestic crude oil production is shocking. I'll say a few things about it in a moment.

But first this: One of President Bush's biggest mistakes has been his failure to commit the government to a vigorous energy conservation program, with an active role for every America.

We had such a program in WW II. As President Roosevelt knew, the conservation program, besides conserving vital war resources, gave citizens one more way to show support for the war. It helped sustain morale and support for the President as Commander-in-Chief.

Regarding the production drop:

Environmental groups are primarily responsible for it.

For decades they've successfully opposed every effort to lower our foreign energy dependence and increase domestic production. Domestic exploration? They've opposed it. Build new, more energy efficient refineries? Opposed. Nuclear power plants? Opposed. And on and on it goes.

The environmental groups opposition to expansion of domestic energy supplies has created a situation where it's now much easier and cheaper for energy companies to buy oil overseas than to find and develop news energy sources here.

But when groups such as Greenpeace and The Sierra Club fund-raise, they don't mention that. Instead they tell people to "Think Green" and help make the world a better place for Bambi.

That's enough to get millions of credulous people reaching for their credit cards.

I wish MSM reporters, pundits and editorialist would say more about environmental groups’ opposition to sensible energy policies.

Then maybe fewer people would find themselves saying, "I've got Amex # 18 .....

You can read Krauthammer's column here.

Speaking up for America's defenders

Early Wednesday morning ROTC buildings on the campuses of North Carolin State University in Raleigh and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were vandalized. The Raleigh News & Observer reported:

Vandals staged attacks early Wednesday on the buildings used by the Reserve Officers' Training Corps at N.C. State University and UNC-Chapel Hill, echoing similar assaults on three Triangle recruiting stations last month.

As before, vandals sprayed anti-war slogans and profanity, splashed red paint and claimed responsibility with a mass e-mail message to area media outlets....

Today, N&O columnist Dennis Rogers described the vandals, and then want on and talked about the military. Here's part of what he said about the vandals:

They're politically inspired vandals who skulk through the night to spread their spoor because they're neither brave nor committed enough to stand and deliver in the light of day.

George Orwell, whose grim novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" cast doubt on the survival of free societies, saw such weasels for what they are: moral and intellectual cowards who offer stirring words about peace but shy away from defending it themselves. Instead, they denigrate those who do.

In an essay called "Notes on Nationalism" written 51 years ago, Orwell said of their type: "Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

While I'm on a literary tack, let me also offer this well-aimed dart from Rudyard Kipling: "Yes, making mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep."

Rogers has it right. We know what kind of Chapel Hill and Raleigh we'd all have if the American military wasn't around.

Rogers closes with this:

The guest of honor at a recent party I attended was a 19-year-old home from boot camp. I have watched Evan Gearino grow from a good kid to an even better man who looks you in the eye and is ready to defend his country. He is neither poor nor a person of color. He is a proud United States Marine.

We live in dangerous and imperfect times.

Someday, Evan may be called on to commit the violence necessary for us to sleep soundly at night. The childish marauders who insult people like him are not worthy to wipe the dirt from his boots.

Rogers says a lot more. You can read it all here.

And then maybe send the column link on to a friend.

We need to keep speaking up for our military.

We need to honor and thank them and their families.

Heaven forbid we ever come to the day when the vandals have gotten their way.

Hat Tip: Mike Williams

The Duke lacrosse DA's Humpty Dumpty world

Regarding attendance at the Duke lacrosse party the night of Mar. 13/14:

News14Charlotte.com reports:

A noise violation and an alcohol possession violation against David Evans, a team captain, is being reinstated, (Durham DA Mike) Nifong said, because the party was held at the house where Evans lived.

Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players with active deferred prosecution deals if they can't prove they weren't at the party. …

WRAL.com reports:

(The second dancer, Kim) Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 -- eight days after the party -- on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.

On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent.

District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.

Got that?

Nifong has no problem with Roberts attending the party, even being one of its principal professional performers.

Afterwards he approves a reduction in her bail terms.

But Nifong thinks its pretty bad stuff for certain lacrosse players to attend the same party.

So bad that he's revoking agreements his office made with them.

What’s more, Nifong’s going to revoke agreements his office made with some lacrosse players who say they weren’t even at the party but just can’t prove it.

If what Nifong's doing bothers you, try chanting to yourself, “Guilty until proven innocent.” That's the mantra of a lot of his Durham supporters.

But if it doesn’t work for you, remember what Humpty Dumpty told Alice: “A word can mean whatever I want it to mean.”

In DA Nifong's world, being at a party can mean whatever he wants it to mean, including the same as not being at the party.

If you like DA Nifong’s Alice in Wonderland brand of justice, you can vote for him on May 2.

The Churchill Series – Apr. 28, 2006

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

Reader’s Note: Previous posts dealing with John(Jack) Strange Spencer Churchill (1880-1947) and his relationship with his only brother and sibling, Winston S. Churchill (1874-1965), are here, here, here, and here.

On Aug. 8, 1908, Jack Churchill married Lady Gwendeline Bertie, whom Winston knew and liked. Later that day, Winston wrote to Clementine Hozier, to whom he would propose in a few days and marry a month later:

I have just come back from throwing an old slipper into Jack’s departing motor-car. It was a very pretty wedding. No swarms of London fly-catchers. No one came who did not really care & the only spectators were tenants & countryfolk. Only children for bridesmaids & Yeomanry with crossed swords for pomp.

The bride looked lovely & her father & mother were sad indeed to lose her. But the triumphant Jack bore her off amid showers of rice & pursuing cheers – let us pray – to happiness & honour.

Jack and Goonie (as she was always called) were, much like Winston and Clementine: intelligent, generous, witty and deeply in love.

Clementine and Goonie quickly became fast friends. They discussed details of their children’s development and their husbands’ careers. They shared opinions concerning art, music, social issues, and affairs of state. In later years they traveled together to such places as Venice, Florence, Rome, Paris and the South of France.

Besides delighting in each others company, the two couples often cared for each others children.

For a time during WW I while Winston served on the Western front and Jack served in the Eastern Mediterranean and later on the Western front, Clementine and her children moved in with Goonie and her three children.

Right up until Goonie’s illness and death in 1941, Winston and Clementine counted on Jack and Goonie (nicknamed “the Jagoons”) for generous love that included a quality rare at any time, and vital to a statesman: discretion.

The Jagoons never let them down. Candid when speaking to Winston and Clementine, they were expert at protecting Winston and Clementine’s private lives and unguarded comments.

In Monday’s post, I’ll conclude this series with a sketch of Jack’s later years and some thoughts on his achievements, including his contributions to Winston and Clementine’s lives.
___________________________________________

Winston’s letter describing Jack and Goonie’s wedding can be found on pgs. 12-13 of Speaking for Themselves: The personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor). I relied on that work for other material in this post. I also made use of Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life and Richard Hough’s Winston and Clementine: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the Churchills.

A physician/social critic is worried about England

Physician and social critic Theodore Dalrymple returned to his native England recently. He found there:

a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.

Dalrymple offers many examples to illustrate his point.

Here's an example of a serious matter taken lightly:

(A) 42-year-old barrister, Peter Wareing, (was) attacked in the street while walking home from a barbecue with two friends, a man and a woman. They passed a group of seven teenagers who had been drinking heavily, one of whom, a girl, complained that the barrister and his friends were “staring” at them. Nowadays, English youth of aggressive disposition and porcelain-fragile ego regard such alleged staring as a justified casus belli.

The girl attacked the woman in the other party. When Wareing and his male friend tried to separate them, two of the youths, aged 18 and 16, in turn attacked them. They hit the barrister’s friend into some bushes, injuring him slightly, and then knocked the barrister to the ground, knocking him down a second time after he had struggled to his feet.

This second time, his head hit the ground, injuring his brain severely. He was unconscious and on life support for two months afterward. At first, his face was so disfigured that his three children were not allowed to see him.
The doctors told his wife, a nurse, that he was unlikely to survive, and she prepared the children for their father’s death. …

Nevertheless, (Wareing) made an unexpected, though partial, recovery. His memory remains impaired, as does his speech; he may never be able to resume his legal career fully. It is possible that his income will be much lower for the rest of his life than it would otherwise have been, to the great disadvantage of his wife and children.

One of the two assailants, Daniel Hayward, demonstrated that he had learned nothing—at least, nothing of any comfort to the public—after he had ruined the barrister’s life. While awaiting trial on bail, he attacked the landlord of a pub and punched him in the face, for which he received a sentence of 21 days in prison.

Dalrymple reports that when sentencing the violent criminals, the judge spoke stern words.

On learning that, you many be thinking: “In America, “stern words” from a judge are often followed by a soft sentence. Is it the same in England?”

It was in this case:

Both received sentences of 18 months, with an automatic nine-month remission, more or less as of right.

In other words, they would serve nine months in prison for having destroyed the health and career of a completely innocent man, caused his wife untold suffering, and deprived three young children of a normal father.

One of the perpetrators, too, had shown a complete lack of remorse for what he had done and an inclination to repeat it.

It’s all terrible, isn’t it?

But American’s shouldn’t be surprised. Such things and much worse happen every day on our streets and in our courtrooms.

Here's an example Dalrymple provides of something trivial in England that authorities there took very, very seriously:

The newspapers reported the case of an Oxford student who, slightly drunk after celebrating the end of his exams, approached a mounted policeman. “Excuse me,” said the young man to the policeman, “do you realize your horse is gay?”

This was not a very witty remark, but it was hardly filled with deep malice either. It was, perhaps, a manifestation of the youthful silliness of which most of us have been guilty in our time….

The policeman did not think the student’s remark was innocent, however.

He called two squad cars to his aid, and, in a city in which it is notoriously difficult to interest the police in so trivial a matter as robbery or burglary, they arrived almost at once.

Apparently, the mounted policeman thought—if thought is quite the word I seek—that the young man’s remark was likely to “cause harassment, alarm or distress.” He was arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for having made a “homophobic remark.”
The young man spent a night in jail.

Brought before the magistrates the following day, he was fined $140, which he refused to pay.

The police then sent the case to the equivalent of the district attorney, who brought the student before the courts again but had to admit that there was not enough evidence to prove that his conduct had been disorderly.

The degree to which political correctness has addled British consciousness, like a computer virus, and destroyed all our traditional attachment to liberty, is illustrated by the words of one of the student’s friends who witnessed the incident. “[His] comments were . . . in jest,” he said. “It was very clear that they were not homophobic.” (bold added - JinC)

In other words, the friend accepted the premise that certain remarks, well short of incitement to commit violence or any actual crime—words that merely expressed an unpopular or intolerant point of view—would have constituted reasonable grounds for arrest.

I can't help but wonder what would've been the reaction in England or here if Mr. Hayward was gay and said his attackers called him "gay" just before attacking him.

"HATE CRIME" headlines? Mass protest vigils? A statement from the Prime Minister saying such "hate" has no place in Britain?

And the sentence? Nine months? That would have been OK?

The PC crowd is mostly interested in special treatment for it selected favorites.

You want a safe society with equal justice for all? You don't believe there should be selective outrage and punishment when a heinous crime is committed?

If you do, get ready: The PC crowd is going to call you a "conservative."

Dalrymple's article is in City Journal. It's lengthy but well worth your time.

Hat Tip: Newmark's Door

The Churchill Series – Apr. 27, 2006

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

Reader’s Note: Previous posts dealing with John (Jack) Strange Spencer Churchill (1880-1947) and his relationship with his only brother and sibling, Winston S. Churchill (1874-1965), are here, here and here.

On January 28, 1900, Jack Churchill arrived in Durban, South Africa, aboard a hospital ship, Maine, which his mother, Lady Randolph Churchill, had helped raise funds to equip. Recently commissioned in the Territorials, Jack had volunteered to serve in the Boer War.

Within a week of his arrival Jack observed his twentieth birthday and was serving alongside his brother Winston, five years his senior and, by then, an experienced combat officer who’d seen action along what is now the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, in Sudan, and South Africa.

The brothers’ first combat action together occurred on Feb. 12 when they were part of a mounted scouting patrol which encountered a much larger Boer force. The British patrol retreated under fire and appeared to have ridden clear of the Boers. Winston tells us what happened next:

I looked back over my shoulder from time to time at Hussar Hill or surveyed the large brown masses of our rearmost squadrons riding so placidly home across the rolling veldt. I remarked to my companion, “We are still much too near those fellows.”

The words were hardly out of my mouth when a shot rang out, followed by the rattle of magazine fire from two or three hundred Mauser rifles. A hail of bullets whistled among our squadrons, emptying a few saddles and bringing down a few horses.

Instinctively our whole cavalcade spread out into open order and scampered over the crest now nearly two hundreds yards away. Here we leapt off our horses, which were hurried into cover, threw ourselves on the grass and returned the fire. …

Jack was lying by my side. All of a sudden he jumped and wriggled back a yard or two from the line. He had been shot in the calf, in this his very first skirmish. …

I helped him from the firing-line and saw (that he received medical attention).

After treatment at a field hospital, Jack was evacuated to the Maine to complete his recovery. His mother had come out with the hospital ship and Winston soon joined them on board for a period of some days.

Jack later returned to the fighting. He was mentioned in dispatches and awarded the Queen’s Medal with five clasps.

For some years before WW I , Jack and Winston served together in the Oxfordshire Yeomanry, at the time a reserve unit whose members pursued civilian careers while training periodically.

Jack was on active duty throughout WWI. He served first near Dunkirk where the British fought to stop the German’s initial advance along the channel coast. Afterwards he served on the Western front, later at Gallipoli and, finally, back again on the Western front after British forces were withdrawn from Gallipoli.

As in the Boer War, Jack served with distinction. He was mentioned in dispatches; and in 1918 was awarded the Distinguished Service Order.

Most historians say the quality Churchill most admired in a man was physical bravery. Jack, he knew, was such a man.

In tomorrow’s post the brothers marry within a month of each other; their wives become close friends; and the two couples move through life sharing good times and bad until death parts them.
________________________________
For this post I’ve drawn from Speaking for Themselves: The personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor), Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life, Richard Hough’s Winston and Clementine: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the Churchills,and John Keegan’s Winston Churchill.

Still no answer to my Joe Wilson question

You remember former Ambassador Joe Wilson, don't you? Took a trip to Niger. Posed for Vanity Fair. Grants more media interviews than Chuck Schumer and Cindy Sheehan combined.

Back on July 18, 2005, I asked a question concerning Wilson in the post below. Take a look and see if you can answer it.
___________________________________________

Some Novak reporting goes unchallenged

At latimes.com there's a story on the Wilson/Plame 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's claims?

The Churchill Series – Apr. 26, 2006

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

Reader’s Note: Previous posts dealing with John Strange Spencer Churchill (1880-1947) and his relationship with his only brother and sibling, Winston S. Churchill (1874-1965), are here and here.

Neglected by their parents, Winston and Jack received the care and love their parents owed them from their nanny, Mrs. Ann Everest, whom the Churchills first employed when Winston was born. The boys reciprocated Everest’s love.

That they would each love Everest is understandable. What’s extraordinary is that they developed in childhood feelings for each other of deep affection, admiration, concern, and devotion that would last their lifetimes.

There were so many factors that could have helped lead the brothers to an envious rivalry. Jack displaced Winston as the only object of Everest’s love and attention. Family and friends often let the boys know Jack was “good,” “really a dear,” while Winnie was “troublesome” and “a worry.” When Churchill’s father, Lord Randolph, spoke or wrote to Winston, he often held Jack up as an example of what Winston should be, usually using harsh, even brutal, language.

An act of Winston’s at the time of Mrs. Everest death on July 3, 1893 reveals his concern for Jack, then a thirteen year old school boy at Harrow.

When Churchill heard Everest was ill, he rushed to her bedside in London. Realizing her condition was serious, he arranged at his expense for a noted physician to attend her and engaged a nurse. But Everest died within a day of his arrival.

Common practice at the time called for Churchill to send Jack news of Everest’s death via telegram. There was also the matter of Churchill having interrupted his military training to go to Everest. He was falling behind each day he was away. He needed to return to his post.

Nevertheless, at a time of great personal sorrow, Churchill was mindful of Jack’s feelings. So he took the train to Harrow and spared Jack the shock of learning the news from a telegram. In doing so, Churchill was also making sure there would be someone at Harrow who understood and shared Jack’s grief.

At the time of Everest’s death Churchill was 18.

In tomorrow’s post, Churchill leaves for South Africa to report and fight in the Boer War. Jack joins him there. The brothers literally fight side by side and narrowly escape death, although Jack is wounded.
________________________________
For this post I’ve drawn from Speaking for Themselves: The personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor), Martin Gilbert’s Churchill: A Life, Richard Hough’s Winston and Clementine: The Triumphs and Tragedies of the Churchills, and John Keegan’s Winston Churchill.

"Big brothers" bring down liberal Air America

From day one, liberal talk radio’s Air America has struggled with low ratings, financial scandal and the “Where’s mine?” demands of its most highly touted show host, former funnyman Al Franken.

Now Drudge reports:

"'AIR AMERICA' IN AUDIENCE PLUNGE NYC"

[...]the just released radio Winter Book [Jan-Mar 2006] from ARBITRON shows AIR AMERICA in New York City losing more than a third of its audience -- in the past year!

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006. …

A network source says the radio ratings released today do not reflect the overall growth of the broadcast.

"The demos are better, and listeners trust AIR AMERICA to give them the real truth on issues and the Bush presidency," says the insider.

Listeners trust Air America?

He's not kidding?

Well, than tell those trusting AA listeners I’m a five-time Olympic gold medal winner. For an autographed photo, they need only send in $19.95

Now if you're serious about following the AA story, Brian Maloney is the "go to guy" at Radio Equalizer.

A few thoughts:

Besides its own boorishness, mendacity and incompetence, two “big brother” factors have helped bring down what many now call the Franken Fluff Network:

1) The huge, successful, well-endowed and passionately liberal National Public Radio has sucked up most of the liberal listeners who might otherwise have tuned in to AA.

2) Liberals see no reason to shell out their own money to support another liberal talk radio network when the government already subsidizes NPR through tax exempt foundation grants, tax exempt contributions, network station locations on tax exempt properties such as college campuses, and, of course, direct government subsidies using money taken from American's who work.

For the latest, stay tuned to Radio Equalizer.

Join the CIA and leak secrets to America's enemies

From a WSJ editorial today, Our Rotten IntelligenCIA:

Fired CIA officer Mary O. McCarthy went on offense Monday, denying through her lawyer that she has done anything wrong.

But the agency is standing by its claim that she was dismissed last week because she "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence." It has been reported that one of her media contacts was Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who just won a Pulitzer Prize for her reporting on the so-called "secret" prisons that the CIA allegedly used to house top level al Qaeda detainees in Eastern Europe.

We're as curious as anyone to see how Ms. McCarthy's case unfolds. But this would appear to be only the latest example of the unseemly symbiosis between elements of the press corps and a cabal of partisan bureaucrats at the CIA and elsewhere in the "intelligence community" who have been trying to undermine the Bush Presidency.(bold added - JinC)

The existence of this intelligence insurgency first came to light in a major way with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote a New York Times op-ed in 2003 questioning the veracity of President Bush's "16 words" about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa.

Someone close to the White House had the audacity to point out that Mr. Wilson was an anti-Bush partisan whose only claim to authority on the matter was the result of wifely nepotism. Mr. Wilson has since been thoroughly discredited, including in a bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee. But former Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Scooter Libby is still being prosecuted as the result of a media-instigated investigation into the "leak" of Valerie Plame's not-so-secret CIA identity. ...

The case of Ms. McCarthy appears to be as egregious as it gets as a matter of partisan politics. She played a prominent role in the Clinton national security apparatus and public records show she gave $2,000 to John Kerry's Presidential campaign and even more to the Democratic Party. Such is her right. But rather than salute and help implement policy after her candidate lost, she apparently sought to damage the Bush Administration by canoodling with the press.

And what will that get her?

So far she's getting strong support from the "bash-Bush and never mind the consequences for America" crowd.

If you don't know that you haven't been listening to people like Denial Schorr at NPR or reading your favorite liberal MSM newspaper.

The WSJ continues:

There is little doubt that the Washington Post story on alleged prisons in Europe has done enormous damage--at a minimum, to our ability to secure future cooperation in the war on terror from countries that don't want their assistance to be exposed.

Likewise, the New York Times wiretapping exposé may have ruined one of our most effective anti-al Qaeda surveillance programs. Ms. McCarthy denies being the source of these stories. But somebody inside the intelligence community was.

Leaving partisanship aside, this ought to be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about democratic government. ...

CIA Director Porter Goss is now facing press criticism for trying to impose some discipline on his agency. But he not only has every right to try to root out insubordination, he has a duty to do so because it undermines the agency's ability to focus on the real enemy.

The serious and disturbing question is whether the rot is so deep that it is unfixable, and we ought to start all over and create a new intelligence agency.

The press is also inventing a preposterous double standard that is supposed to help us all distinguish between bad leaks (the Plame name) and virtuous leaks (whatever Ms. McCarthy might have done). Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie has put himself on record as saying Ms. McCarthy should not "come to harm" for helping citizens hold their government accountable.

Of the Plame affair, by contrast, the Post's editorial page said her exposure may have been an "egregious abuse of the public trust."

Yes, and Downie also told us he couldn't publish the Danish cartoons. That was a matter of being "sensitive to people's feelings."

Message to Downie: Lot's of American's are sensitive about protecting their country from harm.

There's much more to the editorial, all of it worth reading.

Hat Tip: Mike Williams

The Churchill Series – Apr. 25, 2006

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

John Strange Spencer Churchill, Winston’s only brother and sibling, was born Feb. 4, 1880, in Dublin, Ireland, where the boys’ father, Lord Randolph, was serving as Vice-Regent.

Sixty-five years later, Churchill recalled the day: “I remember my father coming into my bedroom at Vice-Regal Lodge in Dublin and telling me (aged 5), ‘You have a little brother.’” Shortly thereafter, the family returned to England.

The brothers’ parents were indifferent to their emotional needs and often away, even at Christmas. Or, if they were at home, they often arranged for the boys to stay elsewhere, lest they distract the Churchills from their political and social pursuits.

But Winston and Jack were not totally denied the kind of care and attention parents owe their children. They received it from a servant: their nanny, Ann Elizabeth Everest.

“My nurse was my confidante, Churchill later wrote. “Mrs. Everest it was who looked after me and tended all my wants. It was to her I poured out my many troubles.”

Everest had been employed when Winston was a baby. As a toddler he began calling her “Woom,” and would continue doing so throughout his life.

With Jack’s birth Woom was no longer just “Winnie’s nanny;” she became “the boys’ nanny.” Everest gave Jack the same deep affection and care she gave Winston.

Jack’s birth and Woom’s care, really love, for Jack confronted Churchill with the first great crisis of his life.

A five year old can be very angry and resentful when a sib arrives. Often, those emotions are directed savagely at parents, cherished caregivers and/or the sib. They can last a person’s whole life.

But a five year old can also take on a “big brother, big sister” role, “helping” parents or caregivers nurture the new sib.

We know how Winston resolved his crisis. Whatever anger or resentment he may have felt toward his parents, “Woom” and Jack, must have been slight and well-repressed. Historians and documents I’ve read note no change in Winston’s feelings or behavior toward “Woom” following Jack’s birth. What we know of the brothers’ relationship in their early years suggests it was then as it was during their adult years: warm, affectionate and caring; in a word: loving.

A five year old who resolves a great crisis in the way Churchill did has taken a long stride toward confident, caring adulthood. He’s beginning to learn that what he holds most dear may be threatened but that he has within himself the resources to master such threats and preserve what’s most dear.

The old expression comes to mind: “The child is father to the man.”
_____________________________________________
Churchill's recollection of his father telling him of Jack's birth is found in Martin Gilbert's Churchill: A Life (p. 2). This post draws on that work, John Keegan's Winston Churchill, and Speaking for Themselves: The Personal Letters of Winston and Clementine Churchill (Mary Soames, Editor) for background.

The discussion regarding Jack’s birth as a crisis and Winston's resolution of it is my responsibility.

Bush threatens another veto

Reuters reports:

President George W. Bush threatened on Tuesday to veto a bill to fund the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina rebuilding if its cost exceeds $92.2 billion, as he weighed in on a heated Senate debate over the bill's rising price tag.

The veto threat, announced in a White House statement on the $106.5 billion emergency spending measure, was aimed at placating conservatives in Bush's Republican Party who are irate over extra items added that they deem as "special-interest" spending.

Bush has not vetoed a bill in his more than five years in office. ...

No, Bush hasn’t, despite often threatening to veto bills which didn’t meet certain criteria.

But whenever a bill he's threatened to veto didn't meet his criteria and came to his desk, Bush has backed off and signed it.

You know what happens to parents, teachers, and anyone else in authority who keeps saying, “If you try that, I won’t stand for it,” and then stands for it.

Parents, teachers, Presidents: it’s all the same. We lose respect for them for threatening and then not following through.

Let’s watch what Bush does on this bill.

As reported by Reuters in the same story, Bush has made clear his veto criteria:

The overall spending in the Senate bill is about $14.5 billion more than Bush requested and which was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives.

"The administration is seriously concerned with the overall funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs," said a draft of the White House statement, which was to be sent to lawmakers.

"If the president is ultimately presented a bill that provides more than $92.2 billion, exclusive of funding for the president's plan to address pandemic influenza, he will veto the bill," the White House said.

We’ll see what happens.

My thoughts:

If the bill calls for anything above $92.s billion, Bush should veto it, with no ands, ifs or buts about it.

If he doesn’t, the number of the Americans answering “Yes” when asked, “Do you believe what President Bush says,” will plummet further.

That will be bad for him, us and the rest of the civilized world.

Let's call this bill the "Veto or Else Bill (VEB)”

We’ll follow it to veto or signing.

Fingers crossed!

Duke lacrosse bathroom questions

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page.)

The alleged victim says three men took her into the bathroom where thy brutally raped and choked her. She says she tried hard to fight them off.

Questions:

Have you and someone else ever helped a cooperative elderly or very ill person into a bathroom to shower?

Didn’t you have to be extremely careful and move very slowly lest you accidentally injure the person or yourselves by hitting one of the hard, angular, and large objects found within a bathroom, particularly a smallish one?

In order to avoid serious injury to any of you, didn’t you carefully plan and coordinate with the person and your helper every move you all made within the bathroom?

Nonetheless, all the while you knew the smallest accidental slip or bump could result in injury, didn’t you?

Did you think about getting a third person to help?

Did you reject that idea because a third person would’ve made things too crowded and harder for everyone to maneuver safely around the shower/tub, toilet, sink, medicine cabinet and towel rack?

Have you ever been asked to help a person who would resist a shower, say an Alzheimers patient with paranoid ideation?

Did you try to help; or did you reject the idea as simply too dangerous to the person and everyone else involved?

Did you think instead of a bedroom where you could give the person a sponge bath?

That would make a lot more sense, wouldn’t it?

The papers report the house at 610 North Buchanan Blvd. has three bedrooms.

What would we do without government regulations?

In Army Leaders of World War II, James B. Sweeney mentions the U. S. Army Air Service's first set of Flying Regulations, which the Service issued at the time of WW I.

Sweeney lists some of the regulations. My favorites:

Don't take the machine into the air unless you are satisfied it will fly.

If the engine stops, land as soon as you can.

Those regulations were good advice for sure, but also something like telling the spy not to use his cyanide capsule unless he really has to.

The Churchill Series - Apr. 24, 2006

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

Did you know Churchill had a brother?

People are often surprised to learn that. Here, for example, is an inquiry typical of many The Churchill Centre receives each year :

While watching “Young Churchill” the other day, I heard a reference to his brother. I have since learned he had a younger brother named Jack. I am highly surprised I have never heard about him before. Could you tell me something about him?

The Centre replied with a “bare bones” sketch, some of which follows :

John Strange Spencer Churchill, 1880-1947, known as Jack, a stockbroker.

Wounded in action in the Boer War, 1899.

Served at Dunkirk, 1914; on Sir John French's staff 1914-15; on Gen. Sir Ian Hamilton's staff at Gallipoli, 1915; on General Birdwood's staff 1916-18.

Married Lady Gwendeline Bertie (1884-1941), daughter of the 7th Earl of Abingdon, in 1908.

Jack and Winston were very close; their descendants still are.

In the next two posts, I’ll put some “flesh” on those “bones.”

Jack was a person of amiable temperament, generous, brave, and possessed of what we used to call “a fine character.” He and Churchill always got along, and after their marriages (both in 1908), the brothers’ wives became best friends.

It followed than that each couple was the other’s “best friend.” They shared the good and the bad of their lives until first Gwendeline’s (called “Goonie” in the family) died in 1941, followed by Jack in 1947.

Jack and Goonie will tell us a lot about Winston. And Clementine, too.

Reader’s Note: I’ve heard from some of you recently. Thank you for sharing information about your Churchill contacts, visits to places associated with his life, and your Churchill readings.

He’s a wonderful companion, isn’t he?

Also, thank you for your nice words.

McClatchy N&O editor threatens to remove Duke lacrosse comments

The McClatchy Company's Raleigh N&O's executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, is threatening to remove from The Editor's Blog, which she operates on McClatchy's behalf, comments about The N&O's Duke lacrosse coverage another reader and I made there.

Please visit Sill's post and the thread where she makes the threats.

Judge for yourself.

Sill has removed readers' comments before. For example, last Aug. 9 and 10 when many readers questioned the factualness of statements she made concerning The N&O's failure to report the loan scandal then engulfing liberal talk radio's Air America, an entire comment thread with about 30 comments was removed.

It took considerable reader protests, including attorneys reminding Sill of First Amendment rights, to get the readers' comments put back.

Please read Sill's Aug 9 post and reader comments and then go on and read her Aug 10 post and readers reactions to that. Be sure to note the many readers who spent their own time and money to do Lexus and other searches in order to confront Sill with data directly refuting a series of statements she made to readers.

I posted at the time and have repeated since that Sill's statements were false.

Since then I've invited editors with The N&O and other newspapers to look at what Sill and the readers said, and than make a statement.

I've offered to publish in full at JinC what the editor(s) say after seeing what Sill and the readers said. My only condition is that the editor is "on the record" and identified by name and affiliation.

So far no takers on that offer, but plenty of journalists have been willing to say off the record Sill's statements were false.

Take a look and see what you think.

Below is a copy of a comment I just left at The Editor's Blog. It's here FYI and in case Sill removes it at her blog.
_____________________________________________

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com
04/24/06 at 11:08
Melanie,

“(F)ar off point?”

A reader comments and I responded to her and you.

I urged you to answer her questions and those of other readers concerning The N&O’s “coverage” of the Duke lacrosse story.

You respond now by telling her and me you’ll delete any further comments like ours.

This thread’s post is titled, “What’s a blog?”

Melanie, do you have any sense of irony?

Please make available to us the standards McClatchy uses to delete reader comments.

Will this comment be deleted if I ask when you plan to answer reader questions at “Getting it right?” They’ve been piling up for days.

As commenters here Joan and I have some First Amendment rights. Please tell us your understanding of those rights.

Finally, in your discussion of what’s a blog, do you plan to tell us the difference between a blog and those internet sites that call themselves blogs, but are really PR operations that operate like the infomercials we see on TV.

Thank you.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Is McClatchy Duke lacrosse reporting “the best?”

The McClatchy Company’s CEO Gary Pruitt has been saying his company’s newspapers are generally the biggest and best in their market areas.

How about that?

Biggest?

Here in North Carolina, McClatchy’s Raleigh News & Observer has the highest circulation numbers of any daily in the central or eastern part of the state.

Score one for Pruitt.

But best? The N&O?

Well, you might believe that if you read only what N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill tells readers in her posts at The Editor’s Blog.

But if you read readers’ comments responding to Sill’s post: WOW!

Try it yourself.

Are you interested in the Duke lacrosse story? Then take a look at “Getting it right.” Also, Sill’s “What’s a blog” post doesn’t mention Duke lacrosse, but wait until you see what happens once you get to the fourth comment which begins:

Ms . Sill, What your coverage of the Duke Lacrosse story has really done is to devastate all of us who truly strive for a color blind society.

I frequently post on the liberal trending left N&O’s “news reporting.” See, for example, this post.

The N&O’s public editor, Ted Vaden, has devoted two recent columns to The N&O’s Duke lacrosse coverage. Vaden goes easy on The N&O but still -- take a look here and here.

I plan to post tonight examples of The N&O’s prosecutorial Duke lacrosse reporting.

Mind you, I don’t know much about what happened that night at 610 N. Buchanan.

But each of us is entitled to due process and presumption of innocence.

The retired generals, Charles Krauthammer and George C. Marshall

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, David Boyd, and Powerline)

Yesterday Charles Krauthammer blew away the whining retired generals' complaints meant to undermine current civilian leadership of America’s military.

Krauthammer next gave the generals and their supporters a civics lesson and warning:

The civilian leadership of the Pentagon is decided on Election Day, not by the secret whispering of generals.

We've always had discontented officers in every war and in every period of our history. But they rarely coalesce into factions. That happens in places such as Saddam's Iraq, Pinochet's Chile or your run-of-the-mill banana republic. And when it does, outsiders (including United States) do their best to exploit it, seeking out the dissident factions to either stage a coup or force the government to change policy.

That kind of dissident party within the military is alien to America. …

It is precisely this kind of division that our tradition of military deference to democratically elected civilian superiors was meant to prevent.

Today it suits the anti-war left to applaud the rupture of that tradition. But it is a disturbing and very dangerous precedents that even the left will one day regret.

Since America's founding, almost all our military officers have understood and respected civilian control.

World War II Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall was one of them. According to his biographer, Forrest Pogue, Marshall believed so strongly in civilian control that he never voted while a serving officer, lest doing so influence how he carried out orders from elected leaders and their designees.

Marshall wasn't unique as regards an officer not voting. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, for instance, for much the same reasons as Marshall, never voted until after he resigned his active commission.

Today, many officers who do vote will tell you they pass on federal candidates and even state candidates who might make decisions effecting the state's national guard. The officers explain they vote mostly for local candidates, such as those running for school board seats in districts where their children attend school.

Did Marshall ever have to follow orders with which he very strongly disagreed? Yes, often.

For instance, against his advice and that of his staff, Roosevelt and Churchill repeatedly delayed the Allied attack on northwest Europe and ordered Marshall instead to direct forces and supplies to other areas.

In such circumstances, Marshall knew he had the options every Army officer has: request a transfer or resign.

Given those honorable options, it’s not expected an officer will carry out orders with which he or she strongly disagrees, remain in the Army accumulating grade and benefits, and then retire and join others in attacking former civilian superiors.

When Marshall was asked which party he favored, he usually answered something like this : My mother was a Republican. My father was a Democrat. And when I was old enough, I became an Episcopalian.

Now we have some retired generals whose mothers were women and fathers were men, and who, when they were old enough to retire, decided to team up and hammer at a foundation stone of American democracy.

No tears for the CIA leaker

NBC News reports:

In a rare occurrence, the CIA fired an officer who acknowledged giving classified information to a reporter, NBC News learned Friday. …

The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC.

The information was allegedly provided to Dana Priest of the Washington Post, who wrote about CIA prisons in November and was awarded a Pulitzer Prize on Monday for her reporting.

Sources said the CIA believes McCarthy had more than a dozen unauthorized contacts with Priest. Information about subjects other than the prisons may have been leaked as well….(full story here)

How did America get so weak that it’s now “a rare occurrence ” when we fire a CIA officer who gave classified secrets to conduits the officer knew would disclose them to America’s enemies?

What about Dana Priest and The Washington (“No Danish cartoons.”) Post?

For starters, they need to tell us why they and other MSM news organizations disclose America's national security secrets, and thereby put us all at greater risk than we already are? What’s written in the Constitution that says Priest and The Post can put us at greater risk?

I’ve got a lot more questions. I’m sure you do too.

So I’m going to keep returning to these questions.

I plan to give them as much priority as I’ve given The N&O’s “journalism.”

We need to get things turned around. America's national security shouldn't be in the hands of the liberal/leftists who dominate news reporting at WaPo and NYT.

What are you're thought's about all of this?

I continue to appreciate your interest, comments and support.

John

The Churchill Series - Apr. 21, 2006

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

Before you go back to reading the days news with its reports from the Middle East and stories about the continuing troubles in Northern Ireland, read this paragraph from the Encyclopedia Britannica’s Churchill biographical entry online (I've broken the paragraph into sections thereby creating "white space" for readers' ease. - JinC):

In 1921 Churchill moved to the Colonial Office, where his principal concern was with the mandated territories in the Middle East.

For the costly British forces in the area he substituted a reliance on the air force and the establishment of rulers congenial to British interests; for this settlement of Arab affairs he relied heavily on the advice of T.E. Lawrence.

For Palestine, where he inherited conflicting pledges to Jews and Arabs, he produced in 1922 the White Paper that confirmed Palestine as a Jewish national home while recognizing continuing Arab rights.

Churchill never had departmental responsibility for Ireland, but he progressed from an initial belief in firm, even ruthless, maintenance of British rule to an active role in the negotiations that led to the Irish treaty of 1921. Subsequently, he gave full support to the new Irish government. ...

It’s almost a century since those events occurred, and forty years since Churchill died. Yet if he walk ed among us now, he'd immediately recognize and understand events in the Middle East and Northern Ireland.

Our media often report events in those areas as if they are primarily determined by contemporary political and religious leaders, and economic and military factors. While they’re important, religious, political, and cultural factors that have been in play for centuries remain the controlling factors in the Middle East and Northern Ireland. conflicts.

Churchill knew that "back then" and would remind us of it today.

My lead Duke lacrosse blogger

Signifying Nothing remains my lead blog for Duke lacrosse links and commentary.

SN blogger Chris Lawrence is a visiting professor in Duke's Political Science Department.

What's more, he lives in the Trinity Park neighborhood, just a few blocks from "the house."

Fervid media have taken to referring to the TP neighborhood as "the epicenter of this gang rape story which has pitted ..."

With all of that, I thought to say, "Chris has a front row seat at what's happening."

But his situation is better than that.

It's more like that of a guy with a box seat behind the dugout AND a pass to both teams' locker rooms.

Chris' commentary is informed and reasoned. He's a "follow the facts" blogger.

And as you would expect from a "follow the facts" blogger, he's quick to acknowledge occasional errors.

Give Chris and SN a look here, if you haven't already done so. Start at the top and keep scrolling down.

How to win a Pulitzer

In today’s Washington Times Douglas MacKinnon describes the litmus test a writer has to pass before the Pulitzer committee deems his or her work acceptable:

Well, as near as I can tell, to make the grade, one must have done at least one of the following: Betray national secrets; go after only Republican lobbyists; tackle only Republican corruption; blame the United States for everything wrong in the world: and the surefire attention getter; try to tear down the presidency of George W. Bush….

Does MacKinnon provide examples of what he’s saying? Yes. Here are a few of them:

Dana Priest of The Washington Post, won the best reporting award for revealing that the CIA was using secret prisons in Eastern Europe to interrogate terrorists.

In other words, they gave an award to a reporter who got a tip from a government worker who betrayed his or her country by revealing top-secret information. The reporter and The Post, in an effort to become the darlings of left, then splashed said top secret information all over the front page.

Who benefited from this "Pulitzer Prize Winning Reporting?" Terrorists who mean to kill everyone in the United States.

Next, you have the New York Times winning a Pulitzer Prize for announcing President Bush's "domestic eavesdropping program." Again, a proudly left-of-center newspaper is given a prestigious award for revealing top secret information that can only bring aid and comfort to al Qaeda and other terrorists who mean to destroy us and our allies.

It should be noted that with regard to the two prizes just mentioned, in the interests of national security, Mr. Bush personally appealed the patriotism and commonsense of both The Post and the New York Times, and implored them not to run the stories. Both papers, it seems, put their strong dislike of Mr. Bush and his policies before the future safety of Americans....

The Post and Times will no doubt answer MacKinnon with “the public has a right to know” and “as journalists we have a duty to report.”

But when Times’ reporter Judith Miller refused a federal judge’s order to disclose the identity of an anonymous source, we heard nothing from the Times about the public’s right to know.

The Post ran Priest’s story, it knew the consequences.

When The Washington Post Company’s Newsweek published a story which proved bogus about Gitmo guards flushing pages of Koran down a toilet, it knew the story would inflame the Muslin world, where the story led to rioting, deaths and injuries as well as further inflaming anti-American sentiment.

The Post Co. defended its publication decisions by claiming “the public has a right to know.”

Then there were the Danish cartoons. The Post and Times, along with almost all of the cowering MSM, decided they could make an exception to the old “right to know” principle. They told us their decisions had nothing to do with the thought of angry Muslims storming the newsroom. It was a question of “sensitivity.”

So they wouldn't dream of publishing even one of the cartoons.

Sure.

Somewhere in the Bible it says the breath of hypocrites “stinketh.”

Don’t get downwind from The Post or Times.

MacKinnon’s column.

Presumed Guilty at Duke

(Welcome visitors from Signifying Nothing)

Dallas Morning News columnist Mark Davis has a question for the “they’re guilty” folks:

What would be the reaction if I were to burst right out of the blocks today and say these Duke lacrosse players are innocent?

I could try to whip up sympathy for them as if I knew the charges were untrue, the indictments a joke, the whole thing a lie.

And then maybe I could suggest we hold rallies in support of them and maybe drum up cash for their future education.

Then what would happen? And what about Davis? What would he think of himself?

Davis answers:

(It) would not go over well. I would be guilty of a singularly obnoxious burst of presumptuousness.

I won't be doing any such thing, of course. But I will be asking why everyone gets a free pass for such presumptions on behalf of the accuser.

Since no one but the parties involved knows the truth, it is the height of irresponsibility for any of us to act as though we do.

The height of irresponsibility?

Be careful, Mr. Davis.

Duke has some privileged and highly compensated faculty who don't agree with you.

And neither do many Durham “activists” and those who make up what most MSM call “the community.”

Mind you, Mr. Davis, I don’t agree with such people.

I’m just warning you they’re loud, angry, self-righteous, and demanding “justice now.” That's a scary combination.

I support everything you say except this:

Note that I do not use the term "presumption of innocence." Only our court system must abide by that precept. …

Not true.

The Founders believed citizens’ rights devolve to us as citizens’ duties.

Can any of us have a right to presumption of innocence unless the rest, or at least most, of us respect and enforce that right?

Imagine a Durham or America dominated by people acting like those you confront in your column.

I hope people read your column. I’ve linked to it here.

Thank you.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

Readers' Note: If you'd like to email Davis, his address is: mdavis@wbap.com.

The Churchill Series - Apr 20, 2006

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

In 1896/97 Churchill, then serving as a cavalry subaltern in India, experienced an intellectual awakening. Hitherto an indifferent student, he began a wide-ranging and intense self-education which he continued throughout his life until its last days.

Historian John Keegan tells us something about the awakening and reaches a conclusion about the young Churchill, who turned 22 on November 30,1896:

(Churchill’s demands for books) were met by his mother, who sent him expensive books by the crate during his Indian years. …

The mainstay was Gibbon, the greatest of all English historians, whom “through the glistening hours of the Indian day, from …stables till the evening shadows proclaimed the hour of Polo, I devoured.”

Even before finishing all eight volumes of Gibbon, however, he had embarked on Plato’s Republic and then the twelve volumes of Macaulay’s History of England. …

Shortly afterward he launched into Schopenhauer, Malthus, Darwin, Aristotle’s Politics, Pascal, Saint-Simon, and Adam Smith. …

The young Churchill, in his leap to self-education, must have been the most unusual cavalry subaltern in any European army.

_________________________________________________
John Keegan, Winston Churchill. (pgs. 38-39)

Duke lacrosse reporting: Is McClatchy's N&O really better?

Did you know The McClatchy Company's Raleigh N& O executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, is upset with national news organizations’ reporting on the Duke lacrosse story?

Sill call’s the reporting “superficial and focused on the case's seamy aspects.”

The national reporting has certainly been superficial and seamy. Outrageous too in it’s shameless appeals to race and class tensions, and in its bias against the lacrosse players.

But what about McClatchy's own N&O? What’s its reporting been like?

Sill says The N&O's been “fair” even as it's “pushed hard on the police investigation.” Pushing hard is necessary because “ (j)ournalism's purpose is to inform communities about important issues.”

OK, let’s take a look at how The N&O informs communities.

Here’s a sample from a lacrosse team story The N&O ran Sunday, Apr 9, on its front page:

Speeding down I-40 while drunk. Urinating in public. Using an adult's ID to buy a case of beer while underage. Kicking in the slats of a fence after an argument with a girlfriend.

Can you see the concentration “on the police investigation?”
Are you glad Sill won't let The N&O engage in “seamy” reporting?

The N&O has published a lengthy interview with the accuser but is withholding her identity. However, it frequently tells readers about her. Here's a sample from a Sunday, Apr 16, story, “Mother, dancer, accuser:”

The petite, soft-spoken woman is described by friends as a caring mother and a hard worker. According to people who have talked with her about her studies at NCCU, she also is a serious student who recently received an A in a difficult course.

I think the two samples cited here typify The N&O’s “fair” reporting.

In yesterday’s N&O you could read this:

They came from a world of hushed golf greens and suburban homes with price tags that cross the million-dollar line.

Before dawn Tuesday, they were escorted into the industrial gray and stainless steel of the Durham County jail. They each wore handcuffs, co-defendants in a gang rape investigation.

Sensationalist? Or just part of The N&O's police investigation reporting? We know what editor Sill would say, don't we?

And there was also this in yesterday’s N&O:

Seligmann, 6-foot-1 and 215 pounds, is a 2004 graduate of Delbarton School, a $22,500-a-year academy. …

A winding, two-lane road leads from the center of Morristown, with its Gap, Godiva and Starbucks, to the woods and rolling hills of the Delbarton campus. …

Seligmann's hometown is about 15 miles east of Morristown. Sitting on a hill, the Borough of Essex Fells is an old summer community that New York City financiers and stock brokers now call home. …

The Seligmann's live in a two-story brick Colonial with black shutters and ivy growing up the front facade. Public records show the house is valued at $1.3 million.

In her next column Sill should tell us how Durham police and DA Nifong will use information about the Gap, Godiva and Starbucks in Morristown and Seligmann's parents’ $1.3 million home to build their case against him. We already know how The N&O is doing that.

Remember what Sill says: “Journalism's purpose is to inform communities about important issues.”

The Churchill Series – Apr 19, 2006

I'm sorry I haven't had time to get a post up today.

My work load is heavy (How did Churchill manage to get so much done?)

I'll post tomorrow, Apr 20, late in the evening.

Thanks for your understanding.

John

In Duke lacrosse case: McClatchy headline bias

Here are a few Duke lacrosse headlines The McClatchy Company's Raleigh News & Observer's published in the last 24 hours:

Durham DA pursues third arrest

3rd suspect sought in lacrosse case

Finnerty's exclusive neighborhood in shock

Suspects in rape share background of privilege

The N&O's exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, has blasted national news organizations for "sensationalist" reporting. She's invited them to leave the Duke and Durham area.

Sill frequently cites The N&O's Duke lacrosse news reporting and columns as models of "fair" coverage.

The N&O's public editor, Ted Vaden, has a different view. He's made a number of criticisms of The N&O's coverage in two recent columns (here and here), including telling readers The N&O's publication of the the now infamous "vigilante poster" was "inappropriate."

Would you believe an oral history of the Clinton presidency?

Betsy Newmark has a good sense of humor but she's not kidding when she reports the Miller Center at the University of Virginia is compiling oral histories of the presidencies from Carter through Clinton.

An oral history of the presidency of William Jefferson Clinton.

That seems so appropriate.

Pizza, anyone?

A Pulitzer for disclosing national security secrets

Paul at Powerline says:

New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize today for their treasonous contribution to the undermining of the highly classified National Security Agency surveillance program of al Qaeda-related terrorists.

As I argued in a column for the Standard, the Risen/Lichtblau reportage clearly violated relevant provisions of the Espionage Act -- a particularly serious crime insofar as it lends assistance to the enemy in a time of war.

Juxtapose the Times's award-winning reportage with the Times's highminded editorial condemnation of President Bush for allegedly failing to follow proper procedure in declassifying the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate key judgments.
Today the Times instructs us: "Even a president cannot wave a wand and announce that an intelligence report is declassified."

Waving a wand is apparently a prerogative reserved to Times executive editor Bill Keller, who made the decision to "declassify" the NSA surveillance program in the pages of the Times. According to Keller, the publication of the NSA story did "not expose any technical intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

Thus Keller waved his wand, and the Times blew the NSA program. Smarter folks than I will have to reconcile the trains of thought at work among the editors of the New York Times.

We hear a lot these days from folks at the Times and their supporters about “arrogance” and “privilege.”

The Times condemns them when they think they’ve found them in others. But could there be anything wrong in disclosing a secret National Security program? The Times will make that decision.

Well, when the Times does it, how about telling us the how and why? At least answer questions the Times own public editor.

The Times won’t answer those questions. Arrongace, privilege and “we’ll decide what’s a secret.”

Its enough to make me ask whether the people running The Times are on the same side we're on.

Tell kids about Lexington and Concord

Yesterday was the anniversary of Paul Revere's ride.

Today is the anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

"Here once the embattled farmers stood"

With the nation’s left-leaning teachers union, the National Education Association, increasingly influencing what's taught in schools, it's not likely many children will be told at school today about the battles and their contributions to the creation of the freedoms we enjoy.

So how about taking a look at this site and sharing some of what you find with a child or children you love.

Also, why not go to a search engine and type in .... (You can all finish the rest of that right up to 'and share some of that with them.')

It's a wonderful country!

The Churchill Series – Apr 18, 2006

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

Churchill loved poetry. He read it; he memorized it; and he enjoyed reciting poems.

Today is many of us recall Longfellow’s poem, “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”

It begins: “On the 18th of April in ’75”

So today a poem in tribute to Churchill, written at the time of his death by Duff Cooper, who held many cabinet offices in Churchill’s cabinets.

When ears were deaf and tongues were mute,
You told of doom to come.
When others fingered on the flute
You thundered on the drum.

When armies marched and cities burned
And all you said came true,
Those who had mocked your warnings turned
Almost too late to you.

Then doubt gave way to firm belief,
And through five cruel years
You gave us glory in our grief,
And laughter through our tears.

When final honours are bestowed
And last accounts are done,
Then shall we know how much was owed
By all the world to one.

On Rumsfeld: Here’s a choice

At Newsweek Evan Thomas and John Barry author its lead story this week: a hit piece aimed at Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

Thomas and Barry, you’ll remember, helped produce Newsweek’s false story about guards at Gitmo flushing pages of the Koran down a toilet. The story led to rioting in the Muslim world that resulted in at least 15 deaths, hundreds of injury and increased Muslim hostility directed at Americans.

Newsweek was forced to issue a retraction.

Are you saying, “John, we’re interested in the Rumsfeld story but can’t you offer us someone with more bona fides than Thomas and Barry?”

Sure I can. Look at this New York Times op-ed:

AS the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, I was the daily "answer man" to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I briefed him twice a day; few people had as much interaction with him as I did during those two years. In light of the recent calls for his resignation by several retired generals, I would like to set the record straight on what he was really like to work with.

When I was at Centcom, the people who needed to have access to Secretary Rumsfeld got it, and he carefully listened to our arguments. That is not to say that he is not tough in terms of his convictions (he is) or that he will make it easy on you (he will not). If you approach him unprepared, or if you don't have the full courage of your convictions, he will not give you the time of day.

Mr. Rumsfeld does not give in easily in disagreements, either, and he will always force you to argue your point thoroughly. This can be tough for some people to deal with. I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr. Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.

Ultimately, I believe that a tough defense secretary makes commanders tougher in their convictions. Was Donald Rumsfeld a micromanager? Yes. Did he want to be involved in all of the decisions? Yes. But Mr. Rumsfeld never told people in the field what to do. It all went through General Franks.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not like waste, which caused some grumbling among the military leadership even before 9/11. He knew that many of the operational plans we had on the books dated back to the 1990's (some even to the late 80's), and he wanted them updated for an era of a more streamlined, technological force. He asked us all: "Can we do it better, and can we do it with fewer people?"

Sometimes General Franks and I answered yes, other times we answered no. When we said no, there was a discussion; but when we told him what we truly needed, we got it. I never saw him endangering troops by insisting on replacing manpower with technology. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we always got what we, the commanders, thought we needed.

This is why the much-repeated claims that Mr. Rumsfeld didn't "give us enough troops" in Iraq ring hollow. First, such criticisms ignore that the agreed-upon plan was for a lightning operation into Baghdad. In addition, logistically it would have been well nigh impossible to bring many more soldiers through the bottleneck in Kuwait. And doing so would have carried its own risk: you cannot sustain a fighting force of 300,000 or 500,000 men for long, and it would have left us with few reserves, putting our troops at risk in other parts of the world. Given our plan, we thought we had the right number of troops to accomplish our mission.

The outcome and ramifications of a war, however, are impossible to predict. Saddam Hussein had twice opened his jails, flooding the streets with criminals. The Iraqi police walked out of their uniforms in the face of the invasion, compounding domestic chaos. We did not expect these developments.

We also — collectively — made some decisions in the wake of the war that could have been better. We banned the entire Baath Party, which ended up slowing reconstruction (we should probably have banned only high-level officials); we dissolved the entire Iraqi Army (we probably should have retained a small cadre help to rebuild it more quickly). We relied too much on the supposed expertise of the Iraqi exiles like Ahmad Chalabi who assured us that once Saddam Hussein was gone, Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds would unite in harmony.

But that doesn't mean that a "What's next?" plan didn't exist. It did; it was known as Phase IV of the overall operation. General Franks drafted it and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department and all members of the Cabinet had input. It was thoroughly "war-gamed" by the Joint Chiefs.

Thus, for distinguished officers to step forward and, in retrospect, pin blame on one person is wrong. And when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches.

Here’s the op-ed’s tag line

Michael DeLong, a retired Marine lieutenant general, is the author, with Noah Lukeman, of "Inside Centcom: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

I said nothing throughout the op-ed because I thought anything I said could easily detract from what DeLong was saying. What’s more I didn’t want to get in your way.
Sometimes a publication will have trouble with a blogger lifting an entire piece, especially when there’s no commentary in the post.

I hope in this case the NY Times doesn’t have a problem. I doubt it will. The post has introductory comments. The Newsweek comments help “frame” DeLong’s op-ed. Also, at this blog we’ve discussed matters DeLong writes about: and we’ll do so in the near future, especially matters relating to the number of troops that should have been deployed in Iraq at various points in time up through today.

Given all of that I think this post's use of DeLong’s op-ed meets the fair use standard.

Hat Tip: Mike Williams

What I’m saying to those retired generals

It seems all of you now speaking out in opposition to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld were intimidated by him while on active duty.

So what happened post-retirement that now, finally, you have the courage to form up and launch media attacks on the seventy-three year old secretary?

Did you all take one of those Outward Bound courses that are supposed to help us face our fears?

Or did you take one of those “Be more assertive” courses now available online for only $39.95?

Why don’t the six of you go on Oprah and tell us all about it.

Start by telling us how you used to sweat and tremble when Rumsfeld fixed you with a glare and asked, “Why?”

We’ll sob.

And when you get to something like standing atop the climbing wall that last day at Outward Bound, we’ll cheer.

I’ve got to go now and check whether I filed for a tax extension.

The IRS intimidates me. What about you guys?

I won’t tell.

The Churchill Series - Apr 17, 2006

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

Two short items, both from William Manchester's biography Alone.

At the time of Neville Chamberlain's death Churchill paid very generous tribute to him in the House of Commons. And I think he treats Chamberlain generously in his WWII history.

Other times he wasn't so generous when assessing Chamberlain, a former mayor of Birmingham. He once said, "Chamberlain looks at life through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe."

Late one evening Churchill was working in the library at Chartwell. A young scholar and a stenographer/typist who had just joined his employ were with him. The scholar had prepared a research paper which Churchill was to use as background for his Marlborough biography.

Churchill scanned the paper. He was dissatisfied with it, and made that clear to the young scholar.

At a pause point, the stenographer/typist sought to break the tension with: "Oh, look outside. It's so dark."

Churchill stared at her for a moment, then said, "It generally is at night."

CNN: There were sealed Duke lacrosse indictments

The latest is from CNN.

Follow the story there at one of the papers' sites or at Signifying Nothing.

Going to the airport now. Back later.

The Duke lacrosse case: Some of the bad; some of the good

I have no problem with any Duke lacrosse player following advice of counsel and exercising constitutional rights, especially when I see the team attacked with the prejudicial and inflammatory kind of journalism The N & O’s Ruth Sheehan practices. (Here and here)

The horrific attacks by Sheehan and so many others on presumed innocent young citizens do serve a few important, albeit unintended, purposes. Let's look at them:

1) The attacks remind us of how precious our rights are and that we must always be ready to protect them.

2) They remind us of how fortunate we are to have in the community citizens who will do that. Look at some of what former Chapel Hill mayor and UNC Law professor Ken Broun recently told The Durham Herald Sun:

"Their attorneys advise them not to talk to police even if they're totally innocent, because of the possibility that things that you might say even if you're totally innocent in the case might be viewed differently by the person hearing them than you meant them," (Broun) said.

"I think that a criminal defense lawyer will generally tell a person under suspicion that unless there is a good reason to talk to police -- for instance, if there's a plea bargain involved or the story is clearly exonerating -- the lawyer will often tell the client not to talk to police.

And I wouldn't draw any reflection on guilt or innocence based upon the failure to talk, particularly after a lawyer gets involved. That's pretty standard operating procedure."

3) They remind us to be ever grateful for the service of our military and public service officers, our court system and reasonable citizens respectful of due process and presumption of innocence

ALERT: No Duke lacrosse indictments today

The Raleigh N&O has just reported:

A Durham grand jury issued a list of indictments this afternoon that did not include members of the Duke University lacrosse team.
District Attorney Mike Nifong had been widely anticipated to seek charges today from the grand jury after an escort service dancer told police more than a month ago that she was sexually assaulted by three men at a lacrosse team party.

It was unclear whether any indictments were issued under seal -- a rare move -- or whether the case was among 24 carried over to a grand jury session two weeks from today.

Nifong refused to answer questions, as did Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens, who oversees the grand jury.

You can read the rest here.

At this point we don't know what may happened in the grand jury room.

We'll need to follow the story at the usual sites. I'n using The N&O, The H-S, The Chronicle, WRAL, and Signifying Nothering.

It will be interesting to see if Nifong has anything to say.

I'm sure defense attorneys will have things to say later today or tomorrow.

More from JinC tonight.

This in haste and unproofed.

Military criticism of civilian leaders is nothing new

There’s a lot wrong with MSM’s reporting about the retired generals speaking out in opposition to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and implicitly, in opposition to President Bush.

But I’m not getting into MSM’s flubs and biases right now except for one: the reports claiming the current military criticism of civilian leadership is “unprecedented.”

That’s not true! Military leaders have often been critical of civilian leadership. Some were retired but others made public criticisms while on active duty: Generals MacArthur, Patton and Stilwell come immediately to mind.

During his presidency, Bill Clinton was so often publicly criticized by officers that top brass felt compelled to issue public warnings that those doing so faced disciplinary action. MSM should remind us of that.

In his biography of WW II Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, Forrest Pogue recounts an instructive and amusing episode that relates to what we’re considering here.

In late December 1941 Britain and the U. S. agreed that the Chiefs of Staff of the two nations’ service branches would form a combined group which would set war strategy, identify and prioritize major military operations, and allocate resources.

Most WW II historians agree the group, The Combined Chiefs of Staff, preformed admirably. But the group had many sharp and sometimes angry differences regarding what to do when and how. Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke called a heated, three hour-long argument they had “the Mother and Father of all rows.”

At one meeting of that sort things got so hot the Generals and Admirals and Field Marshals and Air Marshals could agree on only one thing: it wasn’t good for the Allied cause for them to all be in the same conference room at that moment. So they decided to break and return later.

During the break Field Marshal Sir John Dill, who for much of the war served as liaison officer for the two staffs, went back and forth between the groups with the same message for both: If the chiefs couldn’t settle their differences and draw up a document they could all initial, then “they will get to decide.”

Dill’s message had a great effect because, as one of the chiefs later put it, “We all knew what a hash they could make of things.”

When the Combined Chiefs resumed their meeting, they worked more cooperatively and achieved agreement on a document they all initialed.

The document was then passed on so “they” could initial it “FDR” and “WSC.”

Look what those Newsweek guys are doing now?

Remember that false Newsweek’s story last May about guards at Gitmo flushing Koran pages down a toilet?

It sparked rioting in the Muslim world that resulted in at least 15 deaths, hundreds injured and increased Muslim hostility directed at Americans.

John Barry , Newsweek’s national security correspondent, was assigned to verify the story with Pentagon sources but botched the job.

Evan Thomas was the editor who gave the report a green light for publication based on “confirmation” from a single source who later told Barry that maybe he hadn’t seen the document Barry had asked him about.

You can read more about all of that at Frontpagemag.com's "Newsweek's Victims."

And what are Barry and Thomas doing now?

Just as you’d expect if you know how MSM works, their false Gitmo toilet flushing story hasn’t slowed their careers. In fact, they’ve moved on to bigger things.

This week Barry and Thomas team up to write Newsweek’s lead story: a lengthy hit piece targeting Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. (Anatomy of a Revolt - What made a chorus of ex-generals call for the Seder’s head? The war over the war—and how Rumsfeld is reacting.)

You’d know it was a hit piece just from the headlines.

Revolt? No one’s revolting. Some retired officers are speaking out. That’s nothing new.

“Chorus of ex-generals?” Six are speaking out but I’ll bet by next week we could get a hundred more to do the same.

And what would that prove? Betsy Newmark “did the math” today at her blog. There are about 4,700 retired generals living in the U. S. If we have 106 speaking out that's about 2%.

I'm going to continue to read what outfits like Newsweek and the NY Times say about Rumsfeld. But I'll also reading Michael Barone, Charles Krauthammer, NRO, Powerline , Instapundit, Weekly Standard, and others say.

Meanwhile, a request to Newsweek and the NY Times: Please spend less time telling us what's wrong at the Pentagon, and more time trying to figure out what's wrong at your organizations.

Do you believe this Duke lacrosse “Exclusive?”

News organizations keep telling us how hard they work to gather and report facts. But that's not always the case, Consider the following news story which, mind you, is an “Exclusive.”

NBC17.com headlines:

"Exclusive: Accuser in Duke Rape Case May Have Been Drugged"

The story begins with these three paragraphs:

An unnamed source close to the investigation of a reported rape near the Duke University campus has told NBC 17 News that someone might have drugged the accuser the night she claims three lacrosse members raped her.

"She may have been slipped a date-rape drug in a mixed drink she was given by one of the lacrosse players shortly after she arrived,” the source told NBC 17 late Friday.

"Her condition is said to have changed dramatically in a short period of time, from being completely sober on arrival to passing out on the floor in a short period of time."

NBC17’s story continues for another twenty-five paragraphs , but says nothing further about the unnamed source’s speculation the woman “may have been slipped a date-rape drug.”

Did NBC17 ask the source the basis for the source's speculation? NBC17 doesn’t say.

I'm sure the first question most of us would have asked the source was something like: “Is what you're saying based on what you're heard or know about lab results from the woman's blood samples taken at Duke Hospital the night of the alleged assault?"

Nothing about that in the "Exclusive."

And what does “close to the investigation” mean?

Is the source just one of the many uninformed attention seekers now floating around town and approaching media with: “If you promise not to identify me I can….?”

Or is it someone in DA Mike Nifong’s office looking to “soften up” grand jurors who are home this weekend and, we’re told, will be asked Monday to vote to indict one or more of the lacrosse players?

Surely NBC17 knew people would ask such questions. Why didn’t it say something about what “close to the investigation” means?

Something else: assuming the source asked for anonymity, what was the reason for that?

We’re not told. No surprise though.

NBC17’s “Exclusive” has as much substance as a soap bubble.

Hat tip: Signifying Nothing
______________________________________________
News story URL: http://www.nbc17.com/news/8694922/detail.html

Rev. Jesse Jackson steps into the Duke lacrosse spotlight

The Associated Press reports:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Saturday his Rainbow/Push Coalition will pay the college tuition of a woman who told police she was raped by members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team while working as a stripper -- no matter the outcome of the case.

"I can't wait ... to talk with her and have prayer with her, because our organization is committed, when she's physically and emotionally able ... to provide for her the scholarship money to finish school so she will never ... again have to stoop that low to survive," he said from Chicago in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

When asked, the civil rights leader also said his group will pay for the woman's tuition even if her report proves false. …

So, you want a college scholarship? You got it. And you don’t even need to study hard and get good grades so long as you can make a false rape accusation.

All you parents, teachers, and guidance counselors: be sure to let high school students know how they can become eligible for a Rev. Jackson scholarship.

Jackson's really helping change America, isn't he?

The AP says nothing about what Jackson, regarded by some as a civil rights leader, plans to provide victims falsely accused by his scholarship winners.

Hat tip and trackback: Signifying Nothing.
Trackback: Gateway Pundit. Sister Toldjah.