Two ace posts at Liestoppers

John Foster at Liestoppers looks back at the year since Cyrstal Mangum gave her false witness ("Hoax Day – Never Forget"). What Joan says is worth reading. This paragraph in particular caught my attention:

We learned we now live in a society now where certain "intellectuals"...if they don their mantles of political correctness and their breastplates of victim-hood ...need only gibberish and rambling verbal recklessness to suppress any reasoned opposition.

They can write at the level of a remedial 9th grader and reason at the level of a playground bully...but securely hold positions of power and authority at a prestigious American university. They come in all sizes, colors, genders and creeds. They may actually publicly condemn the children of the families who pay their large salaries..yet sail on, undisturbed by any in so-called authority.

Joan nails it, doesn’t she?

She follows up with an important observation and a challenge to never forget.

Never forget what we've observed at Duke University. It's a microcosm of a many-faceted national farce. Never forget!

It’s sad and all too true that so many of our college and university faculties, especially in what are called the social sciences and humanities areas, are very much like Duke’s, where leftist ideology and rush to judgements are often substitutes for scholarly thought.

You can read Joan’s post here.

Liestoppers also has a post, “Nifong Auditions for Dumbest Criminal.” It’s a read, clip and save which begins:

The closer one looks at Defendant Nifong’s responses to the North Carolina State Bar, the more apparent it becomes that his attempts to avoid responsibility for his words and actions are more likely to qualify him for an appearance on America’s Dumbest Criminals than to save his license to practice law.

With a hat tip to KC Johnson, LS details court testimony by DNA expert Brian Meehan that’s damning in and of itself, but which becomes even more damning of Nifong’s case when he “explains” to the State Bar just what Nifong claims Meehan was really saying in court.

LS also found some big time holes in the accounts by Crystal Mangum and her drivers of their activities in the days leading up to the party. Would you believe they all wound up claiming the party took place on a Sunday night, instead of a Monday night.

Again, it’s a “don’t miss” post. Read it here.

A short note to Regulars and Commenters

Folks,

I plan to respond soon to many of your comments.

Look for a "Talking" post that should be up by 1 am Eastern U.S. time Thursday.

It's Wednesday night now in Australia and I'm headed for bed.

Best,

John

The Churchill Series – Mar. 13, 2007

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

Historian Manfred Weidhorn observed:

In the early 1910s, [Churchill] was the civilian head of the Navy. During the diplomatic crisis of August 1914 that led to the beginning of hostilities, he on his own initiative sent the British fleet to its war stations. When war broke out in a few days, the Navy, as Lord Kitchener complimented Churchill, "was ready."

Writing in September 1916 on his daring action two years earlier, Churchill remarked that if, instead of war breaking out, peace had been maintained (as it had indeed been during several war scares in preceding years), he would have been accused of endangering the peace, of acting in excess of his authority, of increasing the nation’s financial liabilities, and of losing his head. He might well have been sacked.

Nothing,[Churchill] concluded, is sooner forgotten than preparation for a danger successfully guarded against.

Well, there you are. Historians Weidhorn and Churchill are agreed on the matter.

What about you?

The full text of Weidhorn’s remarks is here.

Hat tip: The Chruchill Centre

Coach K: Support was absent

From Raleigh News & Observer reporter Anne Blythe:

Mike Krzyzewski, the face of Duke athletics, was virtually silent last spring as the lacrosse case put the school and its athletic teams under scrutiny.

Now, a year after an escort service dancer alleged being gang-raped at a lacrosse team party, the men's basketball coach says the university should have shown more support for the players.

"The one thing that I wish we would have done is just out, publicly say, 'Look, those are our kids. And we're gonna support 'em, because they're still our kids.' That's what I wish we would have done," Krzyzewski told Bob Costas, a sports commentator who has a television show on HBO. "And I'm not sure that we did -- I don't think we did a good job of that."

For months, bloggers and others have criticized Duke, accusing the university of not standing behind the players as the judicial process unfolded.[…]

Actually the bloggers most of us read have been criticizing Duke for a lot more than “not standing behind the players as the judicial process unfolded.”

The players were savaged in media. Duke was silent. Public officials made statements about the players Duke officials knew were false. They remained silent.

When “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters endangering the players' safety and that of others circulated at Duke and elsewhere, President Brodhead and the top administrators on “Dick’s team” all remained silent.

When President Brodhead did speak out it was to support Nifong’s plan to put the students on trial where Brodhead said they’d have a chance to prove their innocence. Brodhead spoke at a time when it was widely recognized Nifong was engineering a frame-up.

The N&O story continues:

One segment of "Costas Now," an hour-long sports program that airs tonight at 10, will be a one-on-one interview with Krzyzewski, according to Kris Goddard with HBO Sports media relations. According to excerpts from the transcript, Krzyzewski criticizes Duke professors for their criticisms of big-time sports at the university.

"We had almost 100 professors come out publicly against certain things in athletics," Krzyzewski told Costas, "and I was a little bit shocked at that. But it shows that there's a latent hostility or whatever you want to say towards sports on campus. I thought it was inappropriate, to be quite frank with you."

Krzyzewski voiced similar feelings in June during his first extensive public comments about the impact of the case. He called those who used the occasion to attack athletics "very narrow-minded."

"I don't think there's a latent hostility," said Paula McClain, a political science professor who has questioned the role of big-time sports programs at top-tier research universities. "The questions about athletics are not just related to Duke. I'm sorry Coach K really feels like it's hostility toward athletics and such, because most faculty really appreciate Duke athletics." […]

In a future post I plan to return to Coach K and Professor McClain’s remarks about the attitude of faculty toward Duke athletics. For now I’ll just note what many of you know: there’s considerable individual variation in faculty attitude toward athletics at Duke. The range goes from strongly supportive and admiring to harshly critical and wishing for a major overhaul in Duke’s athletics.

What I think is Coach K’s most important statement comes at the very end of the article:

Krzyzewski, who also bears the title of special assistant to the Duke president, told Costas he did not speak out last spring because Brodhead did not ask him to do so.

"I met with my college president. I told Dick Brodhead, 'If you need me ... you tell me, and then put me in a position where I'm not the basketball coach. But I am that special assistant to you,' " Krzyzewski said. "Dick Brodhead did not bring me in."

Dick Brodhead had a chance to bring in Coach K and didn’t.

Why not? Brodhead brought in just about everyone else from the Bowen-Chambers committee, African and African-American Studies professors, and on and on.

Why freeze out one of the most respected leaders in the Duke community? Especially why would Brodhead freeze out Coach K, when the coach holds the position of assistant to President Brodhead?

Folks, there’s still a great deal more we've yet to learn about the frame-up and its enablement by many at Duke.

KC advances Addison, Duke, CS story

In the past few days KC Johnson has done outstanding work advancing the story concerning Durham Police CPL David Addison, who serves as DPD’s CrimeStoppers Coordinator, and the many connections Durham CS has to Duke University including CS board membership by Duke administrators at the time the “Wanted” poster was produced and distributed.

In "Addison, CrimeStoppers and Duke" KC provides background and focused questions.


"CrimeStoppers Update" is just that.


"CrimeStoppers’ Board" provides information I’ve been looking for including the names of Durham CS Board members.


"CrimeStoppers Follow-Up" contains “A few new items on the CrimeStoppers front, based on a conversation I had today with Dean Sue Wasiolek.”

There you go. You don’t want to miss the conversation with Dean Wasiolek or any of the posts for that matter,

The Churchill Series – Mar. 12, 2007

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

Dear Readers,

Most of you know historian Richard Toye and Cambridge University have just announced Toye’s “uncovered” an unpublished article which they attribute to Churchill, while acknowledging it was “ghosted.” The article dates from 1937.

In the promo and media interviews Toye all but calls Churchill an anti-Semite.

I reported and commented on Toye, Cambridge’s promo and the subsequent media frenzy in “Churchill gets Nifonged.”

The Cambridge announcement comes just days before the publication of Toye’s book dealing with the relationship between Churchill and British statesman Lloyd George.

This is not the first time Toye and Cambridge have teamed up to announce a Churchill “discovery.”

On Nov. 28, 2006, Cambridge University announced to the world:

Dr Richard Toye, a Lecturer in History at the University of Cambridge, has found that the phrase “The Gathering Storm” – used by Churchill to depict the rise of Hitler’s Germany – had in fact been conjured up by Wells decades earlier in The War Of The Worlds, which depicts an attack on Britain by Martians.

Imagine that!

Before Cambridge’s announcement I’ll bet most of you thought “the gathering storm” was a very common phrase “conjured up” for centuries by, for example, ship captains looking at menacing horizons.

Who knew it was a phrase stolen by Churchill from H. G. Wells?

I’ll bet none of you can wait to hear what Toye and Cambridge University discover about Churchill's use of the phrase “their finest hour.”

In a day or two I’ll post further concerning Toye, Cambridge and Churchill.

Meanwhile, with Cambridge’s “conjured up” assertion regarding “the gathering storm” in mind, I’m reposting the following series post which first ran on Feb. 6, 2006.

John
____________________________________

On January 30, 1946, Churchill was in Miami where historian Martin Gilbert says:

(Churchill) had a long talk with Emery Reves, who before the war had insured the wide circulation of his articles throughout Europe, about the publishing aspect of his war memoirs.

"I have not forgotten what you have done for me before the war" Churchill told Reves, "and I shall want you to handle it"

Over the next decade, and more, Reves made sure that the memoirs obtained the widest possible circulation, translation and financial benefit.

Shortly after Churchill began work on his memoirs, tension developed between the two as Reves made numerous criticisms of Churchill's drafts.

Churchill, you'll recall, often said that while he liked to learn, he didn't like being taught.

But things came right in the end. Reves was even able to persuade Churchill to change the title he'd selected for the first volume. Thus "The Downward Path" became "The Gathering Storm."
_____________________________________________________
Reader's Note: Some will reasonably wonder whether Churchill actually said
"have done for me before the war" instead of "did for me before the war."

The Churchill quote, along with the rest of Gilbert's text quoted here, appears on page 864 of his Churchill: A Life.

Churchill gets Nifonged

The Urban Dictionary defines Nifonged as: the railroading or harming of a person with no justifiable cause, except for one's own gain.
________________________________________
From Reuters:

A historian has uncovered a pre-World War Two article Winston Churchill wrote about the persecution of Jews but then decided not to publish.

In the long lost article, the wartime leader disapproved of the treatment they experienced, but did say of the Jews: "They have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

Cambridge University lecturer Richard Toye, reflecting on his find, said: "While most people would accept that Churchill was no anti-Semite, this sheds fascinating new light on his views about Jews which were very inconsistent."

While researching in the university's Churchill archives, the historian uncovered the unpublished article in a pile of proofs and press cuttings. "It was a dramatic moment," he said […]

Quite a story if it was true.

But Toye didn’t uncover a “long lost article [by] the wartime leader;” and the article doesn’t reveal Churchill to have been a closet anti-Semite, which Toye all but says he was.

From the International Herald Tribune:

[...] Geoffrey Alderman, a British historian who is a columnist for The Jewish Chronicle in London, said in an interview Sunday that "we have known about this for some time" because the article appears in a collection of Churchill's writings compiled by Martin Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, that was published in the 1980s.

Alderman added: "It does not challenge" the prevailing view of Churchill as supportive of the Jews. "I think it's a flash in the pan."

But Toye said Churchill had sought to publish the article in 1937 in Britain and the United States. Churchill "was apparently happy to put his name to this article in 1937" and was "happy to endorse sentiments contained in articles that were written for him," Toye said.

Gilbert said Churchill had refused to permit the article to be published. He identified the ghost-writer as Adam Marshall Diston, a member of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists. It was not clear why Churchill commissioned him to write an article in his name.[...]

And this from the TimesOnline:

[…] Gilbert said Richard Toye, the lecturer who “found” the article and includes it in a new book, Lloyd George and Churchill ( It’s to be released Mar. 16 in the UK by Macmillan. JinC), must have failed to consult Gilbert’s compilation of Churchill’s writings published in the 1980s, which describes it.

“I’m amazed. My book would have been on the shelf in the same library. I immediately recognised the name of the article,” said Gilbert, whose own new book, Churchill and the Jews, will be published this summer.

Gilbert no doubt was being more than a touch ironic when he said he was “amazed” Toye hadn’t consulted his book.

Besides having at-hand access to Gilbert's book, Toye could very easily have contacted Gilbert, the world’s leading Churchill scholar, to ask Gilbert what he knew about the “long lost article.” Serious scholars do that sort of thing all the time; and Gilbert has a reputation for being very responsive to other scholars’ inquiries.

But if Toye had consulted Gilbert’s book (I'm assuming Toye didn’t consult Gilbert’s book and then later “forget” he did.) or contacted him, Toye and Cambridge University couldn’t now be trumpting, on the eve of publication of Toye’s book, that he'd “unearthed” the “long lost aricle.”

In a TimesOnline op-ed, “Racism is too real to be used as a cheap gibe,” Stephen Pollard, Chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, gives Toye some knocks and then reminds us that unjustified insinuations of anti-Semitism serve to deaden us to real instances of it which, unfortunately, are on the rise in Britian.

Scott Johnson at Powerline posted on the story. I hope you give his post a look.

In a day or two I’ll post again on Toye’s blatantly promotional claims. I'll also post asking why Cambridge University has been helping hype them.

Notes from Australia – Post 2

Readers Note: My father told me a little bit of knowledge wasn’t a dangerous thing so long as I remembered it was only a little bit of knowledge.

With his words in mind, this first-time visitor to Australia offers “Notes from Australia – Post 2.” (See here for Post 1)

John
___________________________________
I’ve been in 4 supermarkets so far. Each gave a fair amount of shelf space to beer brewing kits, brewing sugars, yeasts, etc. In one supermarket the brewing section must have been about 15 feet long and included all shelves top to bottom.

Friends here in Brisbane say a fair number of people all over Australia home brew.

I’m not sure why that is but it can’t be because they don’t have excellent Australian –made commercial beers and lagers. I’m not much of a beer drinker but I’ve tasted about 6 of them and, IMO, they’ve all been excellent.

Let’s go from "excellent" to “brilliant.”

If you’ve spent any time in England, you know the English often use “brilliant” but not the way American do. “Brilliant” in London or York usually means “very good” or even “thank you.” You can have “brilliant” fish and chips, and if you offer to help, you may hear “brilliant.”

The Australians don’t use “brilliant” for “very good” or “thank you” nearly as often as the English but I hear it used that way now and again.

There’s a shop in Brisbane that sells all kinds of nuts in small and bulk amounts. It’s called “Mick’s Nuts.”

More soon.

Aussie joins JinC edit staff

This blogger couldn’t manage without many excellent editors

JinC Regulars know what I mean. Many of them are themselves JinC editors. I can never thank them enough for pointing out and helping correct my mistakes.

To date the edit staff has been almost entirely American. But an Aussie has just joined the staff and I want to welcome him and congratulate him on the nice work he did his first day on the job.

In a Notes from Australia post I mentioned that tic-tack- toe in Australia is called “oughts and crosses.”

But it’s "noughts and crosses,” as Alan who lives in Australia gently reminded me.

Thank you, Alan, and welcome to the JinC editorial staff.

Addison Series # 5 – “Major Duke Involvement"

Readers' Note: If you're a frequent visitor here you may want to skip down to the star line. ************

Cpl. David Addison is a veteran Durham Police officer whose regular assignment is Coordinator for Durham CrimeStoppers, described as an independent nonprofit organization.

In late March 2005 Addison served for some days as DPD's spokesperson for the Duke lacrosse case; during which time Addison repeatedly told the public a “brutal rape” and other crimes were committed at a party hosted by Duke lacrosse players. Addison also wrote and distributed the text of the Durham CrimeStoppers Duke lacrosse “Wanted” poster which declared:

The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.

If you're new to the Addison Series, please refer to the previous series posts at the end of this post. They're in chronilogical order, first to last.
**********************************************************************
Folks,

Until today I’d planned to end the series with a post, “Sue who,” which will discuss individuals and organizations against whom one, some or all 46 white members of Duke’s 2006 Men’s lacrosse team appear to have cause to bring civil suits for slander and libel. I still plan to post “Sue who” but it may be delayed.

The reason?

Since May 2006 I’ve been trying to find out who the Durham CrimeStoppers Board of Directors were on March 28, 2006 when Durham Police Cpl. David Addison, assigned as Durham CrimeStoppers’ (CS) Coordinator, released to DPD substations, media and others the text of the false and inflammatory CS Duke lacrosse “Wanted” poster.

I wanted to know who the CS board members were because Addison’s DPD supervisor, Maj. Lee Russ, told me when Addison issued the “Wanted” poster he wasn’t acting as a DPD officer; Addison was, according to Russ, acting under a blanket authority the CS board gave him to issue CS posters at his discretion.

So who were the CS board members?

The public needs to hear what they have to say about Addison, CS’s responsibility for the “Wanted” poster and Durham attorney Alec Charns' request on behalf of an unindicted Duke lacrosse player for a full, formal apology by DPD and Durham City for their responsibility for the “Wanted” poster which Charns says libeled the Duke students.

Charns is also seeking a formal investigation by DPD into the poster's production and distribution.

DPD and Durham City insist responsibility for the “Wanted” poster rests with Addison and Durham CS.

Despite many attempts since last May, I haven't learned for certain the name of anyone who was a CS board member last March when Addison issued the “Wanted” poster.

Addison's never returned numerous voice mails. The contact number for CS is the same as his. Messages left for CS were never returned. Russ told me last June he didn’t know when or where CS’s board met. He said he couldn’t offer any help beyond suggesting that I keep doing what I was doing.

I’d just about convinced myself Durham CS was a “letterhead” organization with DPD basically calling “the shots” while a few “good-will” citizens lent their names to fund-raising letters and “board sign-offs.”

But that changed in the last two days as I began learning about Duke University’s extensive involvement with Durham CS.

I want to tell you what I've learned, and how I learned it.

My learning started with a comment from a reader self-IDing as “Cederford” who said Duke’s dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, and Robert “Bob” Dean, director of Duke’s Police Department, were Durham CS members. Cederford didn’t say when they were CS board members or cite a source. So I googled Wasiolek and Dean.

Among Wasiolek’s returns was a Duke Alumni Association listing of it’s 2006-2007 board of directors of which Wasiolek is one. She’s described as “involved in the boards of Durham CrimeStoppers, ...” (see here, scroll to page 28).

Among Dean’s returns was a Duke News announcement dated Feb. 7, 2006, just five weeks before Crystal Mangum made her March 14 false witness which many at Duke and in Durham eagerly embraced, and used in ways that endangered most directly the 46 Duke students on the lacrosse team, but also put others in the community at greater risk of violence by unstable individuals and hate groups.

The Duke News’ announcement concerning Dean began:

Robert H. “Bob” Dean has been named Director of the Duke University Police Department, university officials announced

Dean, who served the Duke community for 41 years before retiring and returning last year as interim director, will lead the department’s day-to-day operations and report to Aaron Graves, vice president for campus safety and security.

Near the end of the announcement there was this:

Dean has remained active in public safety and the community by serving as chairman of Durham CrimeStoppers.

The returns don’t necessarily mean that when the "Wanted" posted was produced and distributed Dean was Durham CS chairman and Wasiolek a CS board member.

Duke Police Director Dean may have resigned as CS board chairman and member in the weeks between his appointment last February and Addison’s poster’s production late last March.

Dean of Students Wasiolek may not have joined the CS board until after March.

I'll say more about their CS involvement at the end of this post.

Within a few hours of receipt of Cederford’s comment, I received an email from a friend with many Duke connections as well as some DPD connections. The friend knew of my efforts to learn whether Durham CS had ever, as a non-profit engaged in fund-raising, filed reports with the NC Secretary of State’s office.

I worked with two public information officers in the SofS’s office. We'd turned-up no Durham CS filings but the PIOs had informed me that in was not clear whether Durham CS was in fact required to file any documents with the SofS’s office.

My friend gave me a link here and said it wouldn’t look like much but if I kept “pushing” it would yield a big payoff.

The link is to a June 1983 pro-forma Durham CS filing with the SofS’s office that I and the two PIOs missed.

The filing contains the name and address of only one person who isn't even identified as a CS board member.

But I knew right away who the person was as would any Dukie from the 70s, 80s and through the mid- 90s. It was Paul Dumas.

Beginning in 1971 Dumas served for twenty-five years as Duke’s Police Director. He retired in 1996 and passed away in March, 2001. His family asked that, in lieu of flowers, those wishing to make a contribution in his memory do so to “any CrimeStoppers organization.”

I contacted some Duke people who said Dumas had been a passionate supporter of CS throughout his career. One suggested Dumes very likely encouraged Wasiolek and Dean to get involved in Durham CS. “Paul was always 'recruiting' for CS. He worked with them for years.”

Other Duke people said their impressions were that the university had over the years worked very closely with Durham CS and provided it with considerable material support. “Duke is a dominant presence within Durham CS. I don’t want to go as far as saying Duke controls it, but it’s been at least close to that for many years. Have you looked at back issues of Ten Fourteen? They’re on the web.”

I hadn’t looked at any back issues of Ten Fourteen because I didn’t know it's DUPD’s monthly newsletter for its staff and their families. But I started looking.

The April ’05 Ten Fourteen contains a CrimeStoppers article that includes this:

Duke Police has worked for years with Durham CrimeStoppers, but this year, the Duke Police investigations division is expanding its efforts to raise awareness in the Durham community to help solve campus crimes.

The collaborative includes a more formalized partnership, so cases don’t go unnoticed by CrimeStoppers. David Addison, Durham police corporal and CrimeStoppers coordinator, has started attending a Duke investigations meeting once a week to hear about cases and share information, and Duke Police First Sergeant Greg Stotsenberg is serving as the CrimeStoppers liaison. […]

Major Phyllis Cooper, commander of the Duke investigations division, said the department will mostly enlist CrimeStoppers help with more serious crimes such as robbery, assault and felony theft on campus. […]

“We need everyone’s efforts in solving serious crimes that occur at Duke,” Cooper said. “We want officers and members of the community to remember CrimeStoppers is available.”

In the event of a felony crime on campus, the Duke Police investigator assigned to the case would contact and meet with Addison, the Durham police corporal and CrimeStoppers coordinator.

Posters would be created and distributed on and off campus and an alert would be sent through a Durham city email list, as well as other media sources.

DUPD's Nov. ’05 Ten Fourteen includes this news item:

Officer Christine Gwyn and Sgt. Greg Stotsenberg are filling in as interim coordinators for Durham CrimeStoppers while the coordinator, Durham Police Cpl. David Addison attends training.

Gwyn contributed in October when the second of Durham’s Ten Most Wanted was apprehended; in November, Stotsenberg fills in. The duties include sending email notices for crime-solving tips, taking confidential tips and assisting with a city TV program about Durham’s Ten Most Wanted.

Folks,

There you have what I've learned so far about Duke's involvement with Durham CrimeStoppers and how I leaned it.

Like any decent person, I strongly support Duke's involvement with CrimeStoppers' personnel and activities that contribute to public safety and the just enforcement of laws.

But Duke involvement in the "Wanted" poster is a very different matter that needs prompt, full and public examination by the university.

Who but the most ardent board of trustee Brodhead supporter or an apologist for the faculty Group of 88 would fail to vigorously condemn anyone on Duke's payroll who had anything to do with the CS "Wanted" poster?

Dean of students Sue Wasiolek and police director Bob Dean are arguably the two Duke administrators most responsible for student safety.

That either or both may have had CS board involvement during or around the time the "Wanted" poster circulated on campus and elsewhere should be cause for outrage.

Duke trustee chair Robert Steel needs to ask dean Wasiolek and police director Dean to explain their involvement with Durham CrimeStoppers and what, if anything, they did once they learned the "Wanted" poster was out there and endangering students and others in the community.

This is not a time to be playing games or stonewalling for members of "the Brodhead team."
________________

Previous Addison Series posts:

“The Cpl. Addison Series.”

“Addison Series #1" - "This horrific crime”

"Addison Series #2" - "CrimeStoppers will pay cash"

"Addison Series #3" - "Not my poster"

“Addison Series #4 – “They call it ‘squeezing.’”

The Churchill Series - Mar. 9, 2007

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

Readers have asked for a post or two concerning Churchill and Australia, where I'm visiting now. I'll keep my eye out for something, but no promises.

Meanwhile, let's end the week smiling.

Churchill was very fond of his first regimental colonel, John Brabazon. He was a war hero and by all accounts a fine officer. Churchill described his as "very strict but fair." He also said what many of Brabazon's friends said about him: he was strong-willed, charming when he wished to be, and a bit of a dandy with a sense of entitlement.

In later years Churchill enjoyed telling stories about Brabazon. Here, from memory, are two of them.

Brabazon arrived late for a train. The stationmaster told him:” The train is gone, Sir."

"Gone? Then order another one."

In Queen Victoria's army the common practice was to appoint as regimental colonels officers who had served most of their careers in the regiments they were selected to head. Bringing in an "outsider" was considered a slap at the regiment, especially at its senior officers.

When Brabazon was appointed colonel of Churchill's regiment, the Fourth Hussars, he was an "outsider," having spent most of his career in the Tenth Hussars.

Usually "outsider" colonels did their best to win over the officers and men.

Brabazon did that in the cases of the enlisted men and the junior officers, but he gave the senior officers no quarter and, if anything, went out of his way to let them know that.

One evening in the midst of a formal regimental dinner shortly after he'd joined the Fourth Hussars, Brabazon turned to the officer who was president of the regimental mess and asked: "Tell me, which local chemist did you have make this champagne?"

Churchill and Brabazon remained friends until Brabazon's death in 1922.

I hope you have nice weekends and are all back on Monday which will be Tuesday here.

Changing an NY Times Headline

Under the headline:

Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08

The NY Times told its faithful readers a story that began:

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate began a new legislative push on Thursday for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in 2008, coalescing behind a fixed timetable to end the war. […]

When I finished the story, I looked back at the headline:

Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08

and thought of a more accurate one:

Times Rallies Behind Dems’ Iraq’08 Pullout Plan

The Times’ story is here.

Hat tip: Betsy Newmark

A word about the "Addison Series"

This post is for those of you who've followed the JinC Addison Series.

I've just about finished with the background work I needed to do for the last series post, "Sue who?"

I'll post it before Sunday, Mar. 11.

Meanwhile, if you're new to the series or just want to take "a second look" at the previous posts, here they are in chronicle order:

“The Cpl. Addison Series.”

“Addison Series #1" - "This horrific crime”

"Addison Series #2" - "CrimeStoppers will pay cash"

"Addison Series #3" - "Not my poster"

“Addison Series #4 – “They call it ‘squeezing.’”

I hope you come back on Mar. 11 and take a look at "Sue who?"

John

The Churchill Series – Mar. 8, 2007

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

In 1955 the historian A. L. Rowse spent a day at Chartwell with the then eighty year old Churchill. Rowse later said:

It was revealing to an historian how he spoke of party politics — he didn’t speak as a party-man at all: above all that. He spoke of the Conservative Party as "they"; it brought home how many years he had been a Liberal, and how loosely he sat to mere party, really a man of the centre, in many ways, who never saw things through party blinkers. (Chamberlain was the good party-man.)

Churchill spoke with no feeling whatever against the Labour Party; all that had drossed away. He wondered what would happen to them now they were finding out that nationalization wasn’t a solution. "You don’t create wealth by just taking it away from other people. There should be minimum standards for people, and beyond that —free run."

“Minimum standards for people, and beyond that – free run” IMO captures in a few words Churchill’s belief throughout his political career of the proper function of government social services within a largely free market economic system.

Rowse, who lived into his nineties, said his day with Churchill was: “Quite the most wonderful day l have spent in my life.”

You can read more about that day here.

A hat tip goes to the Churchill Centre for providing Rowse’s account of that “most wonderful day.”

The Churchill Series - Mar. 7, 2007

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

I’m now safe and sound in Australia, and glad to be back in touch with you.

Churchill’s early difficulties with reading are legend. Not so well known are the difficulties he had with arithmetic. He tells us something about it in My Early Life, his account of his first thirty years. Churchill was almost five when, as he put it, “I was first menaced with Education.” And as between letters and numbers, he leaves no doubt as to which he found more menacing:

Letters after all had only got to be known, and when they stood together in a certain way one recognized their formation and that it meant a certain sound or word which one uttered when pressed sufficiently.

But the figures were tied into all sorts of tangles and did things to one another which it was extremely difficult to forecast with complete accuracy. You had to say what they did each time they were tied up together, and the Governess apparently attached enormous importance to the answer being exact.

If it was not right, it was wrong. It was not any use being “nearly right.”

In some cases these figures got into debt with one another: you had to borrow one or carry one, and afterwards you had to pay back the one you had borrowed.

These complications cast a steadily gathering shadow over my daily life. They took away from all the interesting things one wanted to do in the nursery or in the garden. They made increasing inroads upon one’s leisure. One could hardly get time to do any of the things one wanted to do. They became a general worry and preoccupation.

More especially was this true when we descended into a dismal bog called “sums.” There appeared to be no limit to these. When one sum was done, there was always another. Just as soon as I managed to tackle a particular class of these afflictions, some other much more variegated type was thrust upon me.

My mother took no part in these impositions, but she gave me to understand that she approved of them and she sided with the Governess almost always.

While Churchill was a very good reader by age nine, he struggled with math throughout his school days. He failed his first two admissions tests to Sandhurst primarily because of them; and had to take a math tutorial with a “crammer” before he passed on his third try.

BTW – The “Governess” Churchill refers to is not his beloved nanny, Mrs. Elizabeth Ann Everest.

Beyond parody

Duke senior and Chronicle columnist Shadee Malaklou today offers Chronicle readers: "Let's talk about sex, baby. Va-va-voom."

Malaklou confides to her faithful readers and the greater Duke community:

"I'd like to think that most of the time, a woman initiates sex because she really, truly is aroused and because that sexual encounter is going to somehow scratch the itch."

Malaklou also wants us to know:

"Four years into the hookup culture, I'm still a woman who loves her stiletto heels and at least the notion of sexual liberation. I'm just not convinced it works. And I'm not convinced that, upon graduation, I will be able to say that I've had many fulfilling sexual experiences or that my sexual agency was as strong as I claimed it to be."

Notes from Australia – Post 1

Readers Note: My father told me a little bit of knowledge wasn’t a dangerous thing so long as I remembered it was only a little bit of knowledge.

With his words in mind, this first-time visitor to Australia offers “Notes from Australia – Post 1.”

John
____________________________________

We flew to Australia via Qantas.

I’ve flown trans-Atlantic more than 70 times, but this was my first trans-Pacific flight.

Based only on that flight (LA to Brisbane direct) Qantas coach “beat” any trans-Atlantic airline coach I’ve flown the past 20 years, including American, BA, and Delta often, and Aer Lingus, KLM, Air France and Lufthansa less frequently.

Qantas’ seating wasn’t, IMO, that much better than that of the trans-Atlantics carriers I’ve flown, but the food and service definitely were.

We arrived at a very busy time on a Monday morning when many international flights coming in were “stacked-up” after delays due to turbulent weather.

Brisbane’s airport has a passenger-friendly reputation; and that’s how we experienced it that Monday morning.
Two "passenger friendly” examples:

Even at a busy arrival time, luggage trolleys were easily available, and they were free.

And you could take the trolley literally to the door of your cab or to the escalator head that would take you down to the train platform where you’d ride into the city center.

More about transportation in another post.

People?

Wonderful, so far, and as with transportation, more about them in another post.

Three short items:

1) In the last three days, I’ve been to various parts of Brisbane as early as 5:30 am and as late as 11:00 pm.

I’ve yet to see a person who in America would be called “homeless,” or in many parts of Western Europe would be called a “rough sleeper.”

I’ve not asked our son or daughter-in-law about why I haven’t seen “homeless people” because our time together has been grandkids, and family and friends, and “what to see tomorrow” talk.

And I haven't brought the matter up with Brisbaners.

But I’ll “stay on it” and keep you posted.

2) Australia’s money units are in decimal form.

BUT!

No pennies: the five cent piece is their smallest value coin.

So what about $6.22 and $6.23?

You guessed it.

The Aussies round up or down on the nickel.

3) Do kids in Brisbane play tick-tack-tow?

Yes, but they call it “noughts and crosses.”

More soon.

Chronicle editor doesn’t “understand”

Readers Note:

This is a 1,2,3, post.

ITEM 1) - Provides background and an email I sent Duke Chronicle editor-in-chief Ryan McCartney after a Chronicle editorial, when discussing the start of the Men’s lacrosse team’s 2007 season, referred to “the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.”

I told McCartney that while many last Spring, including DA Mike Nifong, had used the phrase “notorious rape scandal,” fair-minded people had always been reluctant to use it. I said that now even people like President Brodhead, who for nine months was one of Nifong’s chief enablers, won’t use the phrase. So why was The Chronicle using it?


ITEM 2) – Editor McCartney responded promptly in an email you’ll read in Item 2. He says his email is off the record, but I hadn’t agreed to that. I reminded him via email of that and he subsequently acknowledged I hadn’t agreed it would be off the record.

During the current academic year, McCartney and I have had both on and off the record exchanges.

McCartney has asked that I treat as off the record his comments principally concerning: first, my urging The Chronicle to editorialize support for Reade Seligmann and his family regarding the threats, including death threats, they endured from hateful individuals and the New Black Panthers on May 18 outside the Durham County Courthouse, and later within the courtroom; and second, I often told McCartney why I thought it was important for Duke that The Chronicle raise questions regarding President Brodhead’s many failures, including his failure to condemn the hate filled people who came on campus the night of March 29 to circulate the “Vigilante” poster, make threats concerning the players and deface their photos on the “Vigilante” posters. All those actions happened literally right outside Brodhead’s office windows.

I encouraged McCartney and the editorial board to either editorially question Brodhead on his silence regarding the threats directed at Seligmann and his parents, or explain to Chronicle readers why it wasn’t doing that.

In all those exchanges, I’ve respected McCartney’s requests that his responses be off the record.


ITEM 3) – Is my email reply to McCartney’s email.

John
_______________________________________________________

ITEM 1) -- On Friday, Feb. 23, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, ran an editorial that began:

This Saturday, the Duke men's lacrosse team will retake the field and play for the first time since the advent of the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.

I decided to send the following electronic letter to The Chronicle’s editor-in-chief, Ryan McCartney.

John
______________

Dear Editor McCartney:

Re: Your Feb. 12 editorial beginning: “This Saturday, the Duke men's lacrosse team will retake the field and play for the first time since the advent of the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.”

”Notorious rape scandal?”

Really?

What “notorious rape scandal?”

Sure, some of Duke’s Arts & Sciences professors who fill the University’s most highly endowed chairs were loud last Spring in their demands for the expulsion of students those professors and others said were involved in the “notorious rape scandal.”

We all remember then Professor Houston Baker telling us about “male athletes, veritably given license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech, and feel proud of themselves in the bargain.”

Durham DA Mike Nifong agreed with the faculty about the “notorious rape scandal.”

But sensible people last Spring were turned off by Nifong and those Duke faculty members. The agreed with the Women’s lacrosse team: Innocent. Or they suspended judgment.

Even President Brodhead, for so many months Nifong’s most prominent enabler, doesn’t talk about the “notorious rape scandal.”

Brodhead now tells people he’s “one of the biggest critics of the way the players have been treated.”

But The Chronicle is still telling the Duke community and everyone else about “the now-notorious (sic) rape scandal.”

Why?

Editor McCartney, you owe your readers an explanation.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina
_____________________________________________________________

ITEM 2) -- Dear John,

Off the record, I really don't understand the point you're trying to make here. This case, and everything that surrounds it, has been considered by many to be a "scandal." We've used that term in the past, and you never picked up on it then. Other papers have used that term in the past, and you don't criticize them.

I might be missing something. If that's the case, please let me know. But I simply don't understand what you're trying to argue.

Best,
Ryan

(Here’s the second email McCartney sent after I told him I hadn’t agreed to an off the record exchange - John)


I say "off the record" so that the two of us can have a more frank discussion of the issue you raise. Technically, both parties have to agree to that, yes. In spirit, though, and in the interest of having frank conversations with others usually it's not an issue.
___________________________

ITEM 3) - Dear Editor McCartney:

I thought my point regarding what The Chronicle editorial board called “the now-notorious rape scandal.” was obvious. But I’ll give it a second go, and try to make it more obvious.

Last Spring we heard a lot of “notorious rape scandal” talk. But that quickly began to change as fair-minded people realized what was going on.

NY Times columnist David Brooks referred to what was happening as “a witch hunt.” The Jonesville News began calling the events “The Hoax.”

Even the Raleigh News & Observer, which led the media part of the frame-up, decided to title its archive of Duke lax stories “The Duke lacrosse controversy.”

Here’s part of a response I received last August from Associate Vice President for News & Communications David Jarmul when I noted Duke News was using tags asserting items were about “Sexual Assault” when in fact no one had established a sexual assault had occurred:

[excerpts]The words that appeared after the colon, i.e., "Information on Sexual Assault," were part of a longer phrase that comprised the "title tag" in the page's underlying code. However, as you saw, the rest of the phrase got cut off on the search result.

The title tag was written in the days immediately after this incident became public, when the focus was squarely on the alleged sexual assault. We've now updated it to read: "Duke Lacrosse: Information on the March 13 Incident and Related Events."

Thanks again for alerting us to this.

Last August Jarmul understood that what we learned about the Hoax should influence how we describe the events that followed the initial false witness of Crystal Mangum in the early hours of March 14, 2006.

I wish you and your fellow editorial board members understood that as well.

As you point out, Editor McCartney, some people still use the phrase “notorious rape scandal.”

I’ve seen it recently at the website of the New Black Panthers. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn some, maybe even most, of Duke’s discredited A&S faculty Group of 88 use the phrase. And, of course, The Chronicle editorial board uses it.

I’m not surprised to see the phrase embraced and used by the New Black Panthers and Group of 88 members. But I was surprised and bothered to see it in The Chronicle.

I think my point was obvious and valid in the first place; and surely you understand it now, even if you don’t agree it’s valid.

Here's a link to a post concerning our exchange.
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/03/chronicle-editor-doesnt-understand.html

I'll place whatever you write in response on the main page, with links to the previous two posts concerning The Chronicle's "notorious rape scandal."

Sincerely,

John

Anderson: H-S "simply enables" Nifong

Professor and pundit William "Bill" Anderson has often graced JinC posts with informed analysis and wise words concerning the Hoax and frame-up.

Today, Monday, Mar. 5, Bill provides more sound analysis and wise words, this time in a letter today to Bob Ashley’s Durham Herald Sun.

[Excerpts]In your March 2 editorial, "N.C. Bar also faces scrutiny," The Herald-Sun once again defends Michael Nifong as though his actions simply were "mistakes," something akin to putting down the wrong answer on a math quiz. Then you say: "Nifong certainly made mistakes, as he concedes, but no one has been wrongly convicted, and no trial has been held." [...]

No harm? What about the millions of dollars the families have had to spend to defend their sons, with the charges being transparently false? What about the damage to the reputations of individuals and to Duke University? [...]

Now Nifong tells the N.C. Bar in a letter that he did not attend any April 10 meeting, and in the same letter mentions the April 10 meeting. Does The Herald-Sun see no problem there? No, once again The Herald-Sun simply enables Nifong and continues to try to sweep the dirt under the rug. You should be ashamed.

WILLIAM L. ANDERSON
Cumberland, Md.

Bill's right: the H-S should be ashamed. But it won't be.

Since coming to the H-S in Jan. 2005 Editor Ashely has been the driving force behind three dramatic, recent changes at the H-S. Two of them are large drops in ad revenue and circulation.

The third? Ashley’s "moved" the paper to the point where noone there will publicly acknowledge shame for the H-S's shilling for Nifong and those who’ve conspired and enabled the frame-up and continue to do so.

We need to keep at Ashley as Anderson does so well in his letter which you can read here.

If we don’t keep at Ashley and those like him, things will get worse. If we do keep at them, things can get better.

Let’s stay at it.

Thank you, Bill.

Awake in Australia

Thank you for all the good trip wishes. I really appreciated them.

Things are working out splendidly here. I slept a lot more on the plane than I thought I would.

So late Monday, Mar. 5, EST and again, Tuesday, Mar. 6, I’ll try some light blogging.

While I’m in Australia, the times and dates I’ll use, unless otherwise noted, will be those of the US Eastern time zone, which is JinC's "regular hours."

On a point of interest – there’s an 18 hour time difference between the lovely city of Brisbane and the Eastern U.S. Since Brisbane’s on the West side of the international date line, it’s now 9:15 am Tues. here and 6:15 pm Mon. EST.

Full blogging with the Churchill Series resumes Wed., Mar. 7.

It’s good to be back in touch with you all.

John