Che! You've Got To Hide Your Love Away

By Mike S. Adams
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Dear UNC-Wilmington Board of Trustees:

I am writing to ask a favor of the Board – one I hope it will take seriously in light of our institution's desire to fight hatred and intolerance on all levels. My request is based on my concern that the rising number of Che Guevara t-shirts among UNCW students reflects a profound ignorance of his life and his true legacy. I think that building a Guevara Memorial in the center of campus would go a long way towards remedying this kind of ignorance.

Before I get into the details of what I want to include in the new Guevara Memorial I would like to address the reasons why he is so misunderstood. A lot of the confusion has to do with the press. Here are some examples of misleading statements made by columnists and authors, which might explain why some of our students regard him as a hero rather than a villain:

"Few doubt Che's sincerity." David Segal, Washington Post.

"[Che presented a] Christ-like image … with his mortuary gaze it is as if Guevara looks upon his killers and forgives them." Jorge Castaneda, Newsweek.

"Che's decency and nobility always led him to apologize." Jorge Castaneda, Newsweek.

"Bravery, fearlessness, honesty, austerity, and absolute conviction … he lived it – Che really lived it." Jon Lee Anderson, author.

"[Che's image] derives from a visual language … it also references a classical Christ-like demeanor." Trisha Ziff, Guggenheim Museum Curator.

"Che died a martyr's death in 1967." David Segal, Washington Post.

In order to help counteract some of the misleading statements authors, journalists, academics, and celebrities have made about Guevara, I would propose that we model his memorial after Thomas Jefferson's. Following that plan, we could carve some of his most revealing quotes into the walls of the memorial for all to see. Some suggestions follow:

"A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." Che Guevara.

"If the nuclear missiles had remained we would have used them against the very heart of America, including New York City." Che Guevara.

"We will march the path of victory even if it costs millions of atomic victims... We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm." Che Guevara.

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial bowl." Che Guevara.

"Don't shoot! I'm Che, I'm worth more to you alive than dead." Che Guevara.

"(T)o execute a man we don't need proof of his guilt. We only need proof that it's necessary to execute him. It's that simple." Che Guevara.

I also want to make sure that a special room documents Che's commitment to gay rights. It is important for people to know that when Madonna dresses up in a Che Guevara outfit she is supporting a man who helped criminalize gay sex and supported the incarceration of young men who exhibited mannerisms merely perceived to be gay.

Another room could be used to place some of his actual correspondence in glass cases. That way, people could learn that Guevara signed some of his early correspondence "Stalin II."

Another room could display pictures of Che fighting in actual revolutionary warfare. This room would be nearly empty because there is little evidence that he ever fought in anything that could be characterized as a real battle. This is due to the fact that most of the people killed by Che were men and boys he shot at close range while they were bound and gagged.

Another room would be built especially for death penalty opponents. It would feature 1892 candles – one for each of the men Che sentenced to the firing squad. This is the most conservative estimate I could find, by the way. Other sources say he admitted to "several thousand" executions during the first year of the Castro regime alone. (The Black Book of Communism claims that the firing squads of Castro and Guevara produced a total of 14,000 murders by 1970).

Another room would educate visitors about the true impact that the regime Che co-founded had on race relations. Special attention would be given to the life of Eusebio Penalver who was the longest serving black political prisoner of the 20th century. He was incarcerated in Cuba longer than Nelson Mandela was incarcerated in South Africa. His jailers called him "Nigger" and "Monkey." They also warned him that they would pull him down from the trees and cut off his tail. Instead, they just put him in solitary confinement. No wonder only .08% of Cuba's communist rulers are black. And no wonder 85% of its prisoners are black. The term "apartheid" could be applied to Cuba if only American communist professors were honest.

Another room would feature a picture of Che wearing his Rolex watch. It will be dedicated to all of my communist colleagues who talk like revolutionaries, live like hypocrites, and fail to teach their students about inconvenient truths.

Tax Hike Scorecard

A reader's guide to Congressional revenue grasping.

Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:01 a.m.

With a new Democratic majority, the agenda on Capitol Hill has shifted abruptly this year, and no more so than on taxes. For a decade the focus in Congress was which taxes to cut. Now everywhere you look someone running the Congress, or running for President, is proposing to raise taxes on some industry or group of Americans.

The proposals are coming so frequently that it's hard to keep track without a scorecard. So as a reader service, and with a tip of the hat to Ed Hyman's ISI Group for some of the details, here's a list of the most notable proposals so far:

• A Senate Finance Committee plan to raise the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents to a total of $1 a pack to finance the Schip health-care expansion. The Senate figures this will raise $35 billion in revenue over five years, if you choose to believe this tax increase won't produce even more tax-free cigarette sales from Indian reservations.

• The so-called Blackstone tax on private equity partnerships that go public, raising their 15% rate to the regular corporate tax rate of 35%. This bipartisan Senate proposal hasn't been scored yet for revenues but may well pass Congress.

• A tax increase on the "carried interest" of hedge funds and private equity to 35% from 15%. This has been introduced in the House and endorsed by Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and the major Democratic Presidential candidates.

New York Senator Chuck Schumer tells the New York Times that he'll oppose this unless the tax increase also applies to real estate and other partnerships that also now pay the 15% carried interest tax rate. To put it another way, Mr. Schumer is saying he'll only support the higher tax rate if it applies to more people. Meanwhile, by playing this "good cop" role, Mr. Schumer is raising millions of dollars in campaign contributions from hedge funds and private equity for Democratic Senate candidates running in 2008. Brilliant.

• Higher withholding taxes on the U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies--in essence a tax increase on foreign investment in America. This $7.5 billion tax proposal from Texas Democrat Lloyd Doggett came out of nowhere last week to appear in the House farm bill to pay for more agriculture subsidies. It passed.

• Raise the capital gains rate to 28% from the current 15%. This would repeal not only the capital gains tax cut of 2003 but also the tax cut (to 20% from 28%) that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1997. Presidential candidate John Edwards proposed this 86% increase in the capital gains tax last week, and he's been echoed in recent days by such Democratic tax sachems as Alan Blinder and Leonard Burman. Mr. Blinder thinks capital gains should be taxed no differently than regular income, which means the tax rate would rise to 39.6% if the 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010. The last time the U.S. had a capital gains rate that high was 1978--the Jimmy Carter era.

• Deny the domestic manufacturing deduction to oil producers. This is part of the Senate Finance Committee's energy bill and is estimated to raise $11.4 billion over 10 years. How this will increase domestic oil production amid $77-a-barrel oil and widespread clamor for "energy independence" is one of those mysteries that Congress prefers not to explain.

• A levy on oil and gas produced from deep-water leases in the Gulf of Mexico. This tax on domestic energy production is also part of the subsidy-fest known as the House farm bill and would allegedly raise $6.1 billion.

• A tax surcharge of 4.3 percentage points on income of more than $500,000, which would take the top marginal rate to 39.3%. A leading tax writer on Ways and Means, Massachusetts Democrat Richard Neal, promoted this idea in June as a way to prevent this year's increase in the Alternative Minimum Tax. Mr. Neal told the Washington Post that his plan had broad support from Democratic leaders and that "Everybody's on board." Other Democrats balked after that story appeared and Mr. Rangel told us not to believe it, but something's clearly in the air because Democratic tax guru Mr. Burman is also pushing a four-percentage-point income tax surcharge to pay for AMT relief.


We're probably overlooking some other tax increase proposals, and some of the above will be blocked this year by President Bush's veto pen. But this kind of manic Congressional grasping at any and every revenue idea hasn't been seen since the first days of the Clinton Presidency.

It's all the more remarkable given that federal tax revenues as a share of GDP are currently above their modern historical level. The latest budget estimate is that fiscal 2007 revenues will reach 18.8% of GDP, compared to the 40-year historical average of 18.3%. Tax revenues this year are rising by nearly 8%, following increases of 11.8% in 2006 and 14.6% in 2005. The budget deficit is down to 1.5% of GDP, and falling. But apparently Democrats still think Americans are undertaxed.

Another Reason for the Pay Gap

By Mary Katharine Ham
Tuesday, July 31, 2007

You can't magically make salaries equal in a marketplace that demands negotiations:

About 10 years ago, a group of graduate students lodged a complaint with Linda C. Babcock, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University: All their male counterparts in the university's PhD program were teaching courses on their own, whereas the women were working only as teaching assistants.

That mattered, because doctoral students who teach their own classes get more experience and look better prepared when it comes time to go on the job market.

When Babcock took the complaint to her boss, she learned there was a very simple explanation: "The dean said each of the guys had come to him and said, 'I want to teach a course,' and none of the women had done that," she said. "The female students had expected someone to send around an e-mail saying, 'Who wants to teach?'

"The result of that experience was a long-term study of gender differences in negotiations when asking for "pay raises, resources, or promotions." Some of the results are telling:

In one early study, Babcock brought 74 volunteers into a laboratory to play a word game called Boggle. The volunteers were told they would be paid anywhere from $3 to $10 for their time. After playing the game, each student was given $3 and asked if the sum was okay. Eight times more men than women asked for more money.

Babcock then ran the experiment a different way. She told a new set of 153 volunteers that they would be paid $3 to $10 but explicitly added that the sum was negotiable. Many more now asked for more money, but the gender gap remained substantial: 58 percent of the women, but 83 percent of the men, asked for more.

Now, feminists would have us set precise salaries for every job and dole them out to each worker, regardless of competence or negotiating skill, just so that we can prevent the dreaded pay gap (which is also caused, in part, by women workers' decision to take time out of the workplace to have children and raise them). But the workplace is a market, in which everyone is working in his own self-interest.

Those who play hardball sometimes get rewarded for it, and if you're unwilling to play the game, you can't make society entirely to blame for your lower salary. An employer doesn't have an obligation to pay you any more than you're willing to assert you're worth.

There's more to it than women just being more assertive, however, and here's where the feminists have a point, according to this study:

Although it may well be true that women often hurt themselves by not trying to negotiate, this study found that women's reluctance was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did. Both men and women were more likely to subtly penalize women who asked for more -- the perception was that women who asked for more were "less nice".

"What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

Ahh, back to blaming it on men. That feels better. Uh-oh, not so fast:

Interesting reading.

The Real Wiretapping Scandal

Our Terrorist Surveillance Program isn't as effective it was a few months ago. Where's the outrage?

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Monday, July 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Last Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing--at which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was insulted by senators and ridiculed by spectators--was Washington political theater at its lowest. But some significant information did manage to get through the senatorial venom directed at Mr. Gonzales. It now appears certain that the terrorist surveillance program (TSP) authorized by President Bush after 9/11 was even broader than the TSP that the New York Times first revealed in December 2005.

It is also clear that Mr. Gonzales, along with former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, tried to preserve that original program with the knowledge and approval of both Republican and Democratic members of key congressional committees. Unfortunately, they failed and the program was narrowed. Today, the continuing viability of even the slimmed-down TSP--an indispensable weapon in the war on terror--remains in serious doubt.

The administration's most immediate concern since 9/11 has understandably been whether al Qaeda sleeper agents, already inside the U.S., would carry out additional catastrophic strikes. To counter this real and continuing threat, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept a full range of al Qaeda communications, presumably on a global basis.

The TSP was not implemented pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which permits a special federal court to issue surveillance orders when Americans and others are targeted for intelligence gathering inside the U.S. Rather than utilizing FISA's cumbersome and restrictive procedures, the administration relied on the president's inherent constitutional authority as commander in chief to monitor enemy communications in wartime, as presidents have done since Lincoln's day.

In addition, the administration correctly relied on Congress's Sept. 18, 2001, authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that this statute authorized the president to employ all the "fundamental incident\[s\] of waging war." This, by any reasonable standard, would include secretly listening in on the enemy's phone calls, and reading their faxes, emails and text messages.


At least, that is what one would have thought. In December 2005, however, a firestorm of controversy erupted when The New York Times published a story describing the TSP. Although it was clear from the beginning that the program targeted al Qaeda--a particular communication was intercepted based on the presence of a suspected al Qaeda operative on at least one end--and not directed at ordinary Americans going about their daily routines, the administration's critics quickly wove the TSP into their favorite overarching anti-Bush narrative. They cited it as just one more example of a supposedly power-hungry president, the new "king George," chewing up our civil liberties.

Administration officials, including Attorney General Gonzales, repeatedly explained the TSP to Congress and the public, presumably to an extent consistent with continuing national security imperatives. In particular, they said that only communications where at least one party to the conversation was outside of the U.S. were intercepted; purely domestic calls were not in play. But after months of congressional pressure, and having failed to secure new legislation that would have fundamentally revised FISA, the administration announced in January this year that it had reached an agreement with the special FISA court to bring the TSP under judicial auspices.

The administration also claimed that the program remained as encompassing as before, so that no national security interest had been compromised by the new arrangement. The TSP's defenders were skeptical. Given how FISA orders are normally sought and granted, it is difficult to believe that they could be used to surveil all conversations of legitimate security interest--such as those involving people who are not full-fledged al Qaeda members, but who are its witting or unwitting supporters. Intercepting the full spectrum of al Qaeda communications is indispensable to obtaining a full picture of its activities, and protecting the American people from attack.

And while the FISA concession put new restrictions on a program that had successfully protected America from attack since 9/11, it did not dampen the TSP controversy. In May, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey described--before a far more congenial Senate Judiciary Committee--a dramatic late night confrontation in March, 2004. It involved Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card, all gathered in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft, who must have signed off on, or at least have known about, the TSP years before, had transferred his authority to Mr. Comey for the duration of his gallbladder surgery. Mr. Comey refused to re-approve the program (which was expiring the next day) because of legal concerns, and the White House wanted Mr. Ashcroft to overrule him.

Mr. Ashcroft, however, now sided with Mr. Comey. Reportedly, he and others even threatened to resign if Mr. Comey did not get his way. The matter quickly reached the president, who authorized Mr. Comey to revise the TSP. The result, it should be emphasized, was the restructured TSP, which was subsequently revealed and vociferously attacked by the administration's critics in December 2005. Those critics, in and out of Congress, immediately seized upon Mr. Comey's May 15 testimony as proof that Mr. Gonzales had lied to Congress when he stated earlier that there was no disagreement at Justice regarding the TSP's legality.

Last Tuesday, however, the circumstances of this midnight drama and the nature of the issues at stake got a lot clearer. Mr. Gonzales, who obviously is still trying to explain things without revealing TSP details that remain classified, noted that the emergency visit to Mr. Ashcroft came after a meeting with White House personnel and the so-called "gang of eight"--the heads of various congressional intelligence committees--who agreed that the TSP had to continue. (Predictably, a number of "gang of eight" Democrats dispute this consensus, but they were clearly aware of the program and presumably White House logs can verify their meeting attendance.)

What now seems equally indisputable is that Mr. Gonzales did not lie to Congress--top Justice Department officials had all approved the 2005 TSP to which he was referring. The disagreement described by Mr. Comey involved the original TSP, in place from 2001-2004. This also explains Mr. Gonzales's statement Tuesday, which prompted calls for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate him for perjury, that the White House meeting with congressional leaders was devoted to discussion of "other intelligence activities." In the language of congressional intelligence oversight, even minimal differences between one program and another can constitute "other" distinct intelligence activities. In this context, Mr. Gonzales was clearly referring to the original TSP, the details of which remain classified, and not the 2005 TSP. Although it is impossible to know for sure, it is a good bet that the original TSP--to which Mr. Comey objected--was broader than the 2005 program and that it permitted interception of al Qaeda communications entirely within the United States (and may also be connected in some manner to datamining efforts, as suggested in Sunday's New York Times).

Such interceptions, unlike the monitoring of international wire traffic, could not be plausibly claimed to fall outside of FISA's language, although they could certainly be justified based on the president's wartime authority to spy on the enemy. Evidently, Mr. Comey didn't think so--or at least was unprepared to issue a compliance certification on the point. Reasonable minds can disagree here, but there was nothing inappropriate about White House officials trying to have Mr. Comey overruled by his boss. John Ashcroft certainly could have reassumed his authority as attorney general, even in his hospital bed.

What has gotten lost in all of this increasingly sordid game of political gotcha is the viability of a critical program in the war on terror. The TSP was brought under the FISA court's jurisdiction this January, allegedly without impairing its effectiveness. But FISA orders are not permanent. They must be periodically reissued, and FISA judges rotate. As an editorial on the facing page of the Journal first reported Friday, well-placed sources say that today's FISA-compliant TSP is only about "one-third" as effective as the 2005 version--which, in turn, was less comprehensive than the original program. This is shocking during a summer of heightened threat warnings, and should be unacceptable to Congress and the American people.

The problem is particularly acute because FISA's 1978 framework has been rendered dysfunctional by the evolution of technology. FISA was enacted in a world where intercepts of purely foreign communications were conducted overseas, and were entirely exempt from the statutory strictures. Only true U.S. domestic communications were intercepted on U.S. soil and these intercepts were subjected to FISA's prescriptive procedures. Yet, with today's fiber optic networks functioning as the sinews of the global communications system, entirely foreign calls--say between al Qaeda operatives overseas--often flow through U.S. facilities and can be most reliably intercepted on American soil. Subjecting these intercepts to FISA strictures is absurd.

Moreover, the very fact that the intelligence community operates in a state of continued uncertainty about what precise surveillance parameters would be allowed in the future--instead of having the collection efforts driven entirely by the unfolding operational imperatives--is both unprecedented in wartime and highly detrimental. In past wars, as fighting continued, valuable battlefield experience was gathered, causing weapons systems, military organization and combat techniques to improve consistently. In this difficult war with al Qaeda, by contrast, the key battlefield intelligence-gathering program has been repeatedly emasculated.


Congress' obsession with the TSP's legal pedigree has become the major threat to its continued viability, rivaling in its deleterious impact the infamous "wall," much criticized by the 9/11 Commission, which prevented information sharing between the Justice Department's intelligence and law-enforcement divisions. It is hypocritical for those in Congress who preach fidelity to the 9/11 Commission recommendations to behave so dramatically at odds with their spirit. The question Judiciary Committee members should have been asking Mr. Gonzales was not whether he had misled them--he clearly did not--but whether the TSP is still functioning well. The question the public should be asking those senators--and with not much more civility than the senators showed Mr. Gonzales--is what are they going to do about it if the answer is no.

Just Drill, Baby

Congress's energy policies would hinder America's economy.

By Pete Du Pont
Monday, July 30, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

America's domestic oil production is declining, importation of oil is rising, and gasoline is more expensive. The government's Energy Information Administration reports that U.S. crude oil field production declined to 1.9 billion barrels in 2005 from 3.5 billion in 1970, and the share of our oil that is imported has increased to 60% from 27% in 1985. The price of gasoline has risen to $3.02 this month from $2 in today's dollars in 1985.

Washington politicians will tell you this is an "energy crisis," but America's energy challenges are far more political than substantive.

First, we are not running out of oil. In 1920 it was estimated that the world supply of oil was 60 billion barrels. By 1950 it was up to 600 billion, and by 1990 to two trillion. In 2000 the world supply of oil was estimated to be three trillion barrels.


The U.S. has substantial supplies of oil and gas that could be accessed if lawmakers would allow it, but they frequently don't. A National Petroleum Council study released last week reports that 40 billion barrels of America's "recoverable oil reserves are off limits or are subject to significant lease restrictions"--half inshore and half offshore--and similar restrictions apply to more than 250 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (We consume about 22 trillion cubic feet a year.)

Access to the 10 billion barrels of oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Reserve has been prohibited for decades. Some 85 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas exist on the Outer Continental Shelf, but a month ago the House again, as it did last year, voted down an amendment that would have allowed the expansion of coastal drilling for oil and natural gas. All of which leaves the U.S. as the only nation in the world that has forbidden access to significant sources of domestic energy supplies.

Then the Senate voted in June to mandate a reduction in projected future oil usage of 10 million barrels a day, or 35%, which, since our domestic oil production is declining, means less imports. In other words, Congress wants to block drilling for more American oil while at the same time blocking the importation of oil--not a rational energy policy.

On the other side of the coin is the need for more refineries to produce the oil products we need: gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel and plastics. Twenty-five years ago we had 254 oil refineries; today there are just 145 (although they are a bit more productive) since we haven't built a new refinery in America for 30 years.

Then there is nuclear power, America's largest pollution-free source of energy. One hundred four nuclear plants supply about 20% of our electricity, and we could build many more. As President Bush pointed out two weeks ago, "Our country has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the 1970s." He recommends that we build three new nuclear plants a year to meet our energy needs. But new nuclear plants have been continually opposed by the liberal establishment that now controls Congress.

Finally, there is coal, the second-largest supplier of world energy after oil. At current consumption levels, America has more than a 100-year supply of it, but mining is difficult and burning it emits significant carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Proposed controls and fees on carbon dioxide emissions are already significantly reducing the use of coal. Last week The Wall Street Journal reported that two dozen of the 150 new coal-fired electrical plants planned to be built have recently been cancelled.


Oil, natural gas and nuclear power are the indispensable energy resources to insure the prosperity of America's economy. But that is not what the congressional leadership thinks. So if we mustn't drill offshore for oil or natural gas, or build nuclear power plants, what is the politically correct action Congress intends to take?

Increasing ethanol subsidies for farmers is at the top of the list. Ethanol is a politically hot energy substance produced from crops like corn, soybeans, sunflowers and switch grass. Current law requires 7.5 billion gallons to be produced by 2012; the new Senate bill would increase that to 36 billion by 2022.

But ethanol is not a good gasoline substitute. It takes some seven gallons of oil to produce eight gallons of corn-based ethanol--diesel fuel for the tractors to plant and harvest the corn, pesticides to protect it, and fuel for trucks to transport the ethanol around the country. So there is not much energy gain, nor with all the gasoline involved does it help with global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And ethanol yields one-third less energy per gallon than gasoline, so that mileage per gallon of ethanol-blended auto fuel is less than gasoline mileage.

Ethanol is a politically popular subsidized product. Producers get a 51-cent-a-gallon subsidy and are protected from international ethanol imports by a 2.5% tariff and an ethanol import duty of 54 cents a gallon. These subsidies have brought more than 100 American ethanol refineries into operation, and another six dozen are going to be built, which has nearly doubled the price of corn, raised the cost of beef and other corn-fed livestock, and increased the cost of milk and corn syrup for soft-drink manufacturers.


Then there are all the other energy ideas Congress wishes to adopt--better energy efficiency for washers, driers, boilers, motors and refrigerators; greater fuel efficiency for cars; and more use of wind, solar and geothermal power generation. Good ideas all--especially more fuel-efficient automobiles--but not substantively or immediately very helpful in meeting the challenge of increasing America's energy supplies to keep our economy, jobs and prosperity increasing.

To do that we must build many more nuclear power plants and increase our drilling for oil and gas. The NPC report says it takes 15 to 20 years from exploration until production begins, and it costs $3 billion to build an average 120,000-barrel-a-day oil refinery. That is just the opposite of the current congressional policy of reducing oil use, blocking access to existing domestic oil reserves, not increasing nuclear power generation, and touting ethanol as another subsidy for farmers.

Globalists Plan to Give Away U.S. Patents

By Phyllis Schlafly
Monday, July 30, 2007

In extraordinary coordination, the judiciary committees of both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in the same week approved a bill, which, if it becomes law, will spell the end of America's world leadership in innovation.

Called the Patent Reform Act, it is a direct attack on the unique and successful patent system created by the U.S. Constitution.

Before 1999, the U.S. Patent Office was required to keep secret the contents of a patent application until a patent was granted, and to return the application in secret to the inventor if a patent was denied. That protected the legal rights of the inventor, who could then go back to the drawing board to perfect his invention and try again.

A mischievous congressional "reform" in 1999 authorized the U.S. Patent Office to shift to the Japanese and European practice of publishing patent applications 18 months after filing whether or not a decision is yet made on granting a patent. Congress allowed a patent application, under certain conditions, to be exempt from the publication requirement, but the default procedure is to publish.

The 2007 Patent bill would delete this exemption and require publication of all patent applications 18 months after filing regardless of whether a decision has been made on granting a patent.

By 2006, the U.S. Patent Office had placed 1,271,000 patent applications on the Internet, giving access to anyone anywhere in the world. This foolish practice created a gold mine for China to steal U.S. innovations and get to market quickly.

Chinese pirates don't roam the high seas looking for booty but sit at their computers, roam the Internet, and steal the details of U.S. inventions that the U.S. Patent Office loads online. This practice became China's research and development program, and it is even more efficient than China's network of industrial and military spies.

U.S. policy has always been to grant a patent to the first one who actually invents something. But the new patent bill would change to the foreign system, which grants patents to the first one to file papers.

First-to-file would be a windfall to megacorporations and a big disadvantage to the small-entity inventor. First-to-file would invite an avalanche of applications from the big companies that have the resources to grind out multiple filings, and the small inventor would be lost in the shuffle. The new patent bill offers yet another way for patent pirates to steal U.S. technology. It's called post-grant review: a plan to make it easier to challenge patents during the entire life of the patent.

Another provision of the new patent bill would shift decision-making about damages for patent infringement from market valuations to judgments by judges and juries. This would increase litigation and limit the ability of independent inventors and small companies to enforce their rights or to win just compensation from those who infringe their rights.

The new bill would also transfer unprecedented rule-making authority to the Patent office. That's an abdication of congressional responsibility.

Add it all up, and it is clear that the new patent bill is a big attack on the constitutional property rights of individual inventors and small enterprises, the very kind of entrepreneurs who give us our most important innovations. About a third of all patent applications are filed by individual inventors, small companies, universities, and nonprofit groups.

The common thread in the changes to be made by the new patent bill is that they favor big companies like Microsoft and hurt individual and small-entity inventors.

Microsoft has thousands of patents, and recently argued that the free GNU/Linux operating system infringes over 200 of them. Microsoft wants to be able to use its huge patent portfolio to intimidate potential competitors, and at the same time it wants it to be easier to knock out individual patents.

If Congress wants to do something constructive for our patent system, Congress should reinstate the rule that the Patent Office may not publish a patent application until a patent is granted, and if it is denied the application must be returned to the inventor with his secrets intact.

Congress should also give back to the Patent Office the flow of fees paid by inventors, which Congress took away in 1999 to spend on other projects. Then the Patent Office can hire more examiners and reduce its backlog of 800,000 applications.

The U.S. patent system is the vital factor in the technological lead that gives the United States an edge over competitors and enemies. Globalists cannot be allowed to destroy it.

Saying What "Progressives" Want to Hear

By David Limbaugh
Friday, July 27, 2007

Liberals like to think of themselves as "progressives," which is not only a euphemism to avoid the stigma attached to "liberal," but is intended to convey that they are a step ahead of conservatives -- socially, culturally, morally and, not least, intellectually. But have you ever noticed at a presidential debate, like the one last Monday, the types of questions these "progressives" in the audience ask of Democratic candidates, or the types of predictable, vacuous answers they applaud?

Some self-styled progressive elites like to think of red-staters as reality-challenged, but when you observe the progressives in action at these forums, it's hard not to conclude they are driven mainly by emotions and largely ignore reality. If it sounds good, regardless of whether it makes sense in the real world, it will score well. The key ingredient to impressing a progressive is to demonstrate that you care.

If you want to ingratiate yourself to these audiences, just say something brilliant like, "I abhor war," or "Dick Cheney is evil."

If you want to risk a little higher level of sophistication, you can say, "We need to get our troops out of Iraq, where our soldiers are dying in a civil war" -- which, of course, implies we have no stake in the war, which, in turn, implies that our soldiers' deaths have been in vain.

When asked whether our soldiers have died in vain, you can say, like Barak Obama did, "I never think that our troops who do their mission for their country are dying in vain." Or, offer John Edwards' nearly identical response: "I don't think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that's been given to them by the commander in chief."

These candidates know better than to say our troops died in vain, so they deny they believe it, even though the logical conclusion of their position is that they have. The question isn't whether they followed orders and did their duty but whether the cause they died for was worthwhile. And yet the enlightened progressives in the audience appear completely oblivious to the law of non-contradiction, which holds that it is impossible for something to be both true and untrue at the same time and in the same context.

Or, consider the subject of Darfur, about which a YouTube questioner asked, "Imagine yourself the parent of one of these children (at a refugee camp near Darfur). What action do you commit to that will get these children back home to a safe Darfur?"

Gov. Bill Richardson dutifully included in his answer this gem: "The answer here is caring about Africa. Doing something about poverty, about AIDS, about refugees, about those that have been left behind. That's how we restore leadership in this country." (APPLAUSE).

Applause? Give me a break. How would doing "something" about poverty, AIDS and the rest restore leadership in this country?

Richardson elaborated that we need to get a U.N. peacekeeping force there and that we need to respond with diplomacy. To quote the caveman on the Geico commercial, "Wwwwwhat?"

How about meeting force with force, Governor? At least Sen. Joe Biden recognized the folly of Richardson's answer and said, "Those kids will be dead by the time the diplomacy is over."

But no one in the Democratic field addressed why a military intervention in Darfur is more justified on humanitarian grounds than our continued presence in Iraq. Why do "progressives" seem to get exercised about death and tragedy where our national interests are not at stake, but not otherwise? Even if all the slander Democrats have disseminated about Bush were true, does that make the plight of the Iraqi people any less urgent?

Finally, when the candidates expressed their various proposals to establish arbitrary withdrawal dates, did the progressives wonder, much less ask, why we don't begin withdrawal immediately? If our presence is causing the problem, and if our troops are, in effect, dying in vain, why let them stay another minute beyond the time it physically takes to remove them?

It won't do to answer that we can't just pull them out without regard to the stability of the region because these candidates say we are causing the instability. But if they insist on taking the contradictory position -- that circumstances exist that militate against an immediate withdrawal -- how can they possibly know precisely when those circumstances will change enough to allow our withdrawal? If they can't -- and they can't -- then why do they propose such arbitrary dates, other than to appease their enlightened constituencies?

But making sense or being consistent aren't necessary for success at a Democratic debate or on a liberal talk show, like HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." What matters is that you say what the progressives want to hear. That's the ticket.

SCHIP: A Step Towards Socialism

By Michael Franc
Friday, July 27, 2007

During the heady days of 1993 when former First Lady Hillary Clinton assembled a group of health experts to reconfigure our health-care system, liberal strategists realized that the march toward socialized medicine might be a slow and halting one. Thus, they devised several alternate routes to the promised land of a universal, government-run system.

Intriguingly, one of these fall-back scenarios bears an uncanny resemblance to the dramatic expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) now under consideration on Capitol Hill.

One option set forth by Clinton’s health task force was dubbed “Kids First.” “Under this approach,” the task force authors explained, “health care reform is phased in by population [group],” beginning with “the most vulnerable of our citizens -- children.” Kids First, they admitted, “is really a precursor to the new [universal] system” under which states would receive “broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into … future program structures.”

Those “future program structures” included plans to eventually add other “population groups” to the government’s rolls.

Enacted four years after HillaryCare expired, SCHIP began as a modest program to expand coverage to children in families with incomes up to twice the poverty level ($40,000 for a family of four today). But one decade and some $40 billion later, profligate states have exploited loopholes and transformed SCHIP into a far more expansive program, one that now covers children in families with annual incomes as high as $82,000, their parents, and even some childless adults.

Following the script outlined in the task force memo, liberals lawmakers now want to expand SCHIP to “new populations” by increasing eligibility for this welfare-style benefit to children (including “slackers” up to age 24) in households with incomes as high as 400% of the federal poverty level. In the Senate version, SCHIP’s annual funding level would triple by 2012 to approximately $15 billion. (Liberals also pander to illegal immigrants with a provision that would eliminate the requirement that persons applying for Medicaid or SCHIP services show proof of citizenship.)

The appeal of using children for political gain is undeniable. “You can’t,” Republican pollster Whit Ayres says, “construct a [poll] question on children and health without getting an overwhelming majority in favor of giving health insurance to children.” Voting against more health care for kids, he notes, is “politically stupid.”

Nevertheless, the liberal road map would steer us straight into a ditch. Offering children from middle-income households a welfare-style health insurance benefit causes what economists call a “crowding out” effect -- i.e., expanding public health-insurance programs actually reduces the overall level of private coverage. Not only does this dramatically increase the cost per each new child covered, but it needlessly undermines private coverage.

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber examined recent expansions of government insurance programs for children and found that “a natural reaction for workers may be to drop coverage of eligible dependents only, while maintaining coverage for themselves.” Indeed, under the proposed expansion, SCHIP coverage would be available to income groups where 89% or more of children are already enrolled in private health plans. The Congressional Budget Office found that the Senate’s SCHIP bill would move more than 2 million children with private coverage to the government’s rolls.

Of course, if the conservative alternative is simply a little less socialism (the counteroffer from Senate Republican leaders is hardly inspiring: bar adults from SCHIP and limit coverage to children in families below 200% of poverty), the march toward HillaryCare will continue.

Thankfully, a hardy band of conservative senators have an alternative. Spearheaded by Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), they propose overhauling the way we finance health care. They would jettison the current entitlement-style tax provision, which subsidizes even the most outrageously expansive health plans, and replace it with a universal health-care tax credit, capped at $2,000 for individuals and $5,000 for families. They also want states to dismantle regulatory obstacles and create competitive marketplaces where individuals could buy the health insurance plan that best suits their needs, thereby lowering the cost of coverage.

According to the Joint Tax Committee, this ambitious approach not only is budget neutral, but it would deliver private coverage to 24 million currently uninsured Americans -- six times the level achieved in the latest installment of HillaryCare.

Kudos to DeMint and his allies. Conservative lawmakers can’t beat something with nothing, especially when it’s socialism hitching a ride on the backs of our children.

Gitmo and al Qaeda

A Bush Administration debate over sending Iraqis to Guantanamo.

Wall Street Journal
Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 a.m.

The U.S. scored a battlefield coup on July 4 when it captured a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq in the northern city of Mosul, and President Bush hailed that capture this week while declassifying other new details about that organization. The issue now is whether the Bush Administration is going to squander part of that victory because of its internal squabbles over the future of Guantanamo Bay.

No one doubts that Khalid Abdul Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashadani is a dangerous enemy of America. Also known as Abu Shahid, he "is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al Qaeda in Iraq network," according to a July 18 briefing by U.S. Brigadier General Kevin Bergner. Mashadani is a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. And he is believed to have been a main communications link between al-Masri and the global al Qaeda leadership of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

In a Tuesday speech, Mr. Bush reported that Mashadani has "confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaeda in Iraq" and that "foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions." Like all such high-value detainees, Mashadani is a potential trove of intelligence both now and well into the future.


The question is what to do with him and other al Qaeda figures who are being captured in increasing numbers in Iraq. One possibility is to turn him over to Iraqi security forces, who would not read him any Miranda rights. He would probably be tried and hanged. This would serve the cause of justice because Iraqis are the main victims of al Qaeda in Iraq's suicide bombings. But handing Mashadani over to Iraq might also eliminate him as a source of intelligence, even as we learn more about al Qaeda in Iraq and thus know better what to inquire about.

His other natural destination is Guantanamo, where the U.S. houses other enemy combatants in the war on terror. This would guarantee his safe treatment, while also keeping him available for further interrogation. Just as important, the transfer would signal that Gitmo continues as a valuable antiterror tool.

We're told, however, that some senior officials at the State and Defense Departments are opposed to such a transfer. They want Mr. Bush to close down Guantanamo as a goodwill gesture to the rest of the world, and they believe that transferring al Qaeda in Iraq detainees there might make that harder to do. They may be right, but in our view that's all the more reason to send the detainees to Gitmo.

While Guantanamo is clearly disliked around the world, those who want to close it have yet to offer a suitable alternative. Transferring its detainees to some place further offshore would mean spending billions of more dollars on a new facility, while facing the same criticism from antiwar activists. Gitmo is also territory under U.S. control, which means it avoids the complication of embarrassing allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, or somewhere else (as in the "secret CIA prisons" in Europe where KSM and other 9/11 plotters were allegedly kept before their transfer to Gitmo in 2006).

The legality of Guantanamo has also been upheld by the Supreme Court, which isn't true of any other foreign outpost. The High Court has agreed to hear another Gitmo-related case in October, and it's not a bad idea to remind the Justices that Guantanamo harbors terrorists captured on the current battlefield while trying to kill Americans. That fact might give them pause before they supplant their own war judgment for the Commander in Chief's and make it easier for these killers to return to the war.

The real goal of Guantanamo's critics is to have these killers treated like common criminals in American courts. That would make it impossible to deny them the full array of U.S. legal protections. In many cases, prosecutors would lack enough evidence to convict them under normal trial rules, especially if much of the evidence were classified. Soldiers don't build a criminal case like "C.S.I." sleuths when they're snagging an enemy on the battlefield while also trying to avoid getting killed.

The result of bringing Gitmo detainees into U.S. criminal courts would inevitably be their widespread release--which means leaving them free to kill Americans again. The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point recently examined the non-classified evidence about Gitmo detainees, and in a new report concludes that 73% were a "demonstrated threat" to U.S. forces. No less than 95% were a "potential threat." According to the Pentagon, at least 30 former Gitmo detainees have returned to fight Americans after deceiving U.S. interrogators and being released.

One of those detainees, Abdullah Mahsud, was captured in northern Afghanistan in late 2001, held until March 2004, and upon release immediately became a Taliban leader in southern Waziristan near the Afghan-Pakistan border. In October 2004, he directed the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers, one of whom was killed during a rescue attempt. This week he blew himself up with a grenade rather than surrender to Pakistani troops who had him surrounded.


In his speech this week, Mr. Bush went on the political offense and made a strong case that al Qaeda in Iraq is part and parcel of the larger al Qaeda network. To leave Iraq too soon would hand bin Laden a victory. Mr. Bush can strengthen his argument--and protect Americans--by dispatching Mashadani and other al Qaeda in Iraq captives to the Guantanamo prison for terrorist killers.

Health Care: Government vs. Private

By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Sometimes the advocates of socialized medicine claim that health care is too important to be left to the market. That's why some politicians are calling for us to adopt health care systems such as those in Canada, the United Kingdom and other European nations. But the suggestion that we'd be better served with more government control doesn't even pass a simple smell test.

Do we want the government employees who run the troubled Walter Reed Army Medical Center to be in charge of our entire health care system? Or, would you like the people who deliver our mail to also deliver health care services? How would you like the people who run the motor vehicles department, the government education system, foreign intelligence and other government agencies to also run our health care system? After all, they are not motivated by the quest for profits, and that might mean they're truly wonderful, selfless, caring people.

As for me, I'd choose profit-driven people to provide my health care services, people with motives like those who deliver goods to my supermarket, deliver my overnight mail, produce my computer and software programs, assemble my car and produce a host of other goods and services that I use.

There's absolutely no mystery why our greatest complaints are in the arena of government-delivered services and the fewest in market-delivered services. In the market, there are the ruthless forces of profit, loss and bankruptcy that make producers accountable to us. In the arena of government-delivered services, there's no such accountability. For example, government schools can go for decades delivering low-quality services, and what's the result? The people who manage it earn higher pay. It's nearly impossible to fire the incompetents. And, taxpayers, who support the service, are given higher tax bills.

Our health care system is hampered by government intervention, and the solution is not more government intervention but less. The tax treatment of health insurance, where premiums are deducted from employees' pre-tax income, explains why so many of us rely on our employers to select and pay for health insurance. Since there is a third-party payer, we have little incentive to shop around and wisely use health services.

There are "guaranteed issue" laws that require insurance companies to sell health insurance to any person seeking it. So why not wait until you're sick before purchasing insurance? Guaranteed issue laws make about as much sense as if you left your house uninsured until you had a fire, and then purchased insurance to cover the damage. Guaranteed issue laws raise insurance premiums for all. Then there are government price controls, such as the reimbursement schemes for Medicaid. As a result, an increasing number of doctors are unwilling to treat Medicaid patients.

Before we buy into single-payer health care systems like Canada's and the United Kingdom's, we might want to do a bit of research. The Vancouver, British Columbia-based Fraser Institute annually publishes "Waiting Your Turn." Its 2006 edition gives waiting times, by treatments, from a person's referral by a general practitioner to treatment by a specialist. The shortest waiting time was for oncology (4.9 weeks). The longest waiting time was for orthopedic surgery (40.3 weeks), followed by plastic surgery (35.4 weeks) and neurosurgery (31.7 weeks).

As reported in the June 28 National Center for Policy Analysis' "Daily Policy Digest," Britain's Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients waits more than a year for surgery. France's failed health care system resulted in the deaths of 13,000 people, mostly of dehydration, during the heat spell of 2003. Hospitals stopped answering the phones, and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

I don't think most Americans would like more socialized medicine in our country. By the way, I have absolutely no problem with people wanting socialism. My problem is when they want to drag me into it.

Liberalism Dangerously Defined

By Michael Medved
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Ted Sorensen’s service to John F. Kennedy (as both US Senator and President) earned him legendary status as the most celebrated speechwriter in US history. Sorensen crafted the famous “Ask not…” phrase in the inaugural address, and wrote JFK’s stirring “New Frontier” acceptance speech when he won the Democratic nomination in 1960.

Last week, Sorensen (now 79) wrote another speech intended to inspire the Democratic hordes who scent victory in another watershed election. He wrote a proposed “Acceptance Speech” which he means to offer to whichever candidate prevails in the nomination fight.

Some of the carefully crafted language reads like vintage Sorensen – and could be reasonably effective if properly delivered by a skillful speaker. “In this campaign,” the speech declares, “I will make no promises I cannot fulfill, pledge no spending we cannot afford, offer no posts to cronies you cannot trust, and propose no foreign commitment we should not keep. I will not shrink from opposing any party faction, any special interest group, or any major donor whose demands are contrary to the national interest.”

At this point, however, Sorensen delivers a definition of unabashed liberalism, which, if echoed by the actual Democratic nominee, could guarantee victory for the GOP: “Nor will I shrink from calling myself a liberal in the same sense that Franklin and Theodore Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Harry Truman were liberals – liberals who proved that government is not a necessary evil, bur rather the best means of creating a healthier, more educated, more prosperous America.”

Conservatives should rejoice at the prospect of fighting out an election campaign on precisely this question: is government indeed the “best means of creating” a better America—or is it an intrusive, annoying, arbitrary, largely destructive force that consumes too much of out time, energy and money.

I remain confident that the majority of our fellow citizens will warm much more readily to the Ronald Reagan formulation that “government isn’t the solution; government is the problem,” or the Jeffersonian declaration that “the government that governs best, governs least.”

Even Tom Paine, the Revolutionary pamphleteer generally beloved by the secular left, declared: “While human society general counts as a blessing to the individual, government at the very best amounts to a necessary evil.” In other words, Tom Paine directly contradicts the Sorensen approach.

Mitt Romney has recently lashed out at Hillary Clinton for suggesting the replacement of an “on your own society” with a “working together society.” As the former Massachusetts aptly observes, even welfare-state societies in Europe have begun rejecting that approach. He suggests that Hillary’s “working together,” “shared responsibility” mantra means that “she wouldn’t be elected President of France today, never mind the United States.”

Even Americans near the bottom of the economic ladder feel instinctive (and appropriate) revulsion to the liberal message that “you can’t make it on your hope” and that government provides your only hope. Optimism about personal advancement represents a core American trait that cuts across all racial, educational and ideological lines.

If the Democrats follow Ted Sorensen’s advice, and Hillary Clinton’s recent rhetoric, their victory in 2008 hardly amounts to a foregone conclusion.

Anonymous in Iraq

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

So did you hear the one about American soldiers playing with dead baby parts found in a mass grave in Iraq?

No wait, how about the guy who loved to drive Bradley armored vehicles so he could knock down concrete barriers and mow down little doggies sunning in the road?

Or this one: American soldiers in a chow hall making fun of a woman whose face was "more or less melted, along with all the hair on that side of her head" from an IED.

These are but a few of the claims made by one "Scott Thomas," otherwise known as the "Baghdad Diarist," allegedly a soldier serving in Iraq who has sent three dispatches to The New Republic since January. He uses the pseudonym "Scott Thomas," say the magazine's editors, so he can give honest reports without fear of official reprisal.

But are they honest? Or has The New Republic (TNR) been ''glassed'' again? In the 1990s, TNR Associate Editor Stephen Glass was fired for fabricating stories.

The conservative Weekly Standard began questioning the reports last week. Bloggers have joined in challenging the anecdotes, as have military personnel who have served in Iraq and, in some cases, have eaten in the same chow hall mentioned.

Thomas' version of events in Iraq is looking less and less credible and smacks of the "occult hand."

The occult hand was an inside joke several years ago among a group of journalists who conspired to see how often they could slip the phrase -- "It was as if an occult hand had ..." -- into their copy. This went on for years to the great merriment of a few in the know.

Looking back, it's hard to imagine how a phrase as purple as "an occult hand" could have enjoyed such long play within the tribe of professional skeptics known as journalists. Similarly, one wonders how Thomas' reports have appeared in the magazine without his editors saying, "Hey, wait just a minute."

When it comes to the playbook of anti-military cliches, Thomas seems guilty of plagiarism. What could be more cliche, after all, than American soldiers ridiculing a defaced woman, running over dogs or desecrating babies' remains?

The New Republic editors say they're investigating the reports, but refuse to reveal the author's identity. There's always a chance, of course, that these stories have some truth to them. Maybe a guy made an unkind remark about a poor woman's burned face. Maybe a dog got run over. Maybe a grave was found and a soldier capped his head with a skull part.

Stranger -- and far worse -- things have happened in war. But people who have served in Iraq have raised enough questions about these particular anecdotes that one is justified in questioning whether they are true.

As just one example, it is unlikely that a Bradley would be driven through concrete barriers just for fun, according to an Army JAG who e-mailed me. He explained that people aren't alone out there. Other vehicles, NCOs and officers would be around and Iraqis would have made a claim for repairs, resulting in a JAG investigation.

In other words, either plenty of people would know about it -- or it didn't happen.

It may be that The New Republic editors and others who believed Thomas' journal entries without skepticism are infected with Nifong Syndrome -- the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief.

Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor in the alleged Duke lacrosse team rape case, was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Why? Because the lies supported their own truths. In the case of Duke, that "truth" was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer.

In the case of Scott Thomas, the "truth" that American soldiers are woman-hating, dog-killing, grave-robbing monsters confirms what many among the anti-war left believe about the military, despite their protestations that they "support the troops."

We tend to believe what we want to believe, in other words.

Whether Scott Thomas is real and his reports true remains to be determined. In the meantime, it is tempting to wonder: What if we believed in American honor and victory in Iraq?

What would those dispatches look like?

Good News

By John Stossel
Wednesday, July 25, 2007

In political life today, you are considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.

But what's compassionate about that? Compassionate is "live and let live."

Brink Lindsey, author of the new book "The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America's Politics and Culture", says that a growing number of Americans agree. They are increasingly tolerant of other people while still holding firm values of their own. Lindsey writes at the Cato Institute website: "Core commitments to family, work, and country remain strong, but they are tempered by broadminded tolerance of the country's diversity and a deep humility about telling others how they should live. ...

"Liberal attitudes on race and the role of women in society have now become subjects of overwhelming consensus. Consider interracial dating, once among the most ferociously enforced of taboos. According to a 2003 survey, 77 percent of Americans agreed with the proposition, 'I think it's all right for blacks and whites to date each other,' up from 48 percent in 1987. ... Some 9 in 10 Americans endorsed equal job opportunities for gays and lesbians as of 2003."

Lindsey, whose book is getting favorable attention in The New York Times, The Economist, Los Angeles Times, Times of London and National Review, is not the first to point this out, but he emphasizes that the "live and let live" ethic arose only when material security could be taken for granted. As people worried less about where their next meal would come from, they had time to contemplate and develop more enlightened attitudes.

"American capitalism is derided for its superficial banality, yet it has unleashed profound, convulsive social change," he writes. "Condemned as mindless materialism, it has burst loose a flood tide of spiritual yearning. The civil rights movement and the sexual revolution, environmentalism and feminism, the fitness and health-care boom and the opening of the gay closet, the withering of censorship and the rise of a 'creative class' of 'knowledge workers' -- all are the progeny of widespread prosperity."

Relative freedom and the astounding prosperity it yielded have created one of the most humane societies in history -- the opposite of what the opponents of economic freedom predicted.

We take that prosperity for granted, since most of us are victims of what's been called "pessimistic bias." Anything undesirable about our current circumstances is taken as evidence that times are getting worse. But times were much worse throughout history. Lindsey and other writers show that Americans (and many others in the world) are stunningly wealthy compared to even our recent ancestors.

This affluence isn't just for the "rich." As Lindsey told me recently, "Ordinary Americans, not just those at the top, enjoy a standard of living unmatched anywhere else on earth or at any other time."

But many Americans don't believe it. The New York Times suggests that politicians win votes by "talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs." And Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom the leading London betting site has as a remarkable 1-1 favorite, mourns the "rising inequality and rising pessimism."

No wonder so many of us think life is getting worse.

But that's nonsense. Average wages are up. Last month, America created 132,000 new jobs. In the last four years, America created 8.2 million jobs. Much of the world is desperate to immigrate to America.

America is rich, and because of that it is humane, with increasing numbers of people developing the tolerance that the intelligentsia says Americans should practice. Why doesn't this good news get the attention it deserves?

Could it be because Lindsey's story has the profit motive at the center? The great material abundance he writes about was not the result of altruism but the pursuit of profit and win-win voluntary exchange. For some people that's bad -- no matter how wonderful the consequences.

This is perverse to say the least. The personal pursuit of happiness is a good thing, particularly when it makes everyone better off, too.

Cheese Headcases

Wisconsin reveals the cost of "universal" health care.

Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:01 a.m.

When Louis Brandeis praised the 50 states as "laboratories of democracy," he didn't claim that every policy experiment would work. So we hope the eyes of America will turn to Wisconsin, and the effort by Madison Democrats to make that "progressive" state a Petri dish for government-run health care.

This exercise is especially instructive, because it reveals where the "single-payer," universal coverage folks end up. Democrats who run the Wisconsin Senate have dropped the Washington pretense of incremental health-care reform and moved directly to passing a plan to insure every resident under the age of 65 in the state. And, wow, is "free" health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes. It represents an average of $510 a month in higher taxes for every Wisconsin worker.

Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined.

This employment tax is on top of the $1 billion grab bag of other levies that Democratic Governor Jim Doyle proposed and the tax-happy Senate has also approved, including a $1.25 a pack increase in the cigarette tax, a 10% hike in the corporate tax, and new fees on cars, trucks, hospitals, real estate transactions, oil companies and dry cleaners. In all, the tax burden in the Badger State could rise to 20% of family income, which is slightly more than the average federal tax burden. "At least federal taxes pay for an Army and Navy," quips R.J. Pirlot of the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce business lobby.

As if that's not enough, the health plan includes a tax escalator clause allowing an additional 1.5 percentage point payroll tax to finance higher outlays in the future. This could bring the payroll tax to 16%. One reason to expect costs to soar is that the state may become a mecca for the unemployed, uninsured and sick from all over North America. The legislation doesn't require that you have a job in Wisconsin to qualify, merely that you live in the state for at least 12 months. Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health-care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes.


Proponents use the familiar argument for national health care that this will save money (about $1.8 billion a year) through efficiency gains by eliminating the administrative costs of private insurance. And unions and some big businesses with rich union health plans are only too happy to dump these liabilities onto the government.

But those costs won't vanish; they'll merely shift to all taxpayers and businesses. Small employers that can't afford to provide insurance would see their employment costs rise by thousands of dollars per worker, while those that now provide a basic health insurance plan would have to pay $400 to $500 a year more per employee.

The plan is also openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs. Private companies are making modest progress in sweating out health-care inflation by making patients more cost-conscious through increased copayments, health savings accounts, and incentives for wellness. The Wisconsin program moves in the opposite direction: It reduces out-of-pocket copayments, bars money-saving HSA plans, and increases the number of mandated medical services covered under the plan.

So where will savings come from? Where they always do in any government plan: Rationing via price controls and, as costs rise, waiting periods and coverage restrictions. This is Michael Moore's medical dream state.

The last line of defense against this plan are the Republicans who run the Wisconsin House. So far they've been unified and they recently voted the Senate plan down. Democrats are now planning to take their ideas to the voters in legislative races next year, and that's a debate Wisconsinites should look forward to. At least Wisconsin Democrats are admitting how much it will cost Americans to pay for government-run health care. Would that Washington Democrats were as forthright.

Morally Paralyzed

By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

"Moral paralysis" is a term that has been used to describe the inaction of France, England and other European democracies in the 1930s, as they watched Hitler build up the military forces that he later used to attack them.

It is a term that may be painfully relevant to our own times.

Back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing -- and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him.

Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today -- "negotiations."

No leader of a democratic nation was ever more popular than British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain -- wildly cheered in the House of Commons by opposition parties as well as his own -- when he returned from negotiations in Munich in 1938, waving an agreement and declaring that it meant "peace in our time."

We know now how short that time was. Less than a year later, World War II began in Europe and spread across the planet, killing tens of millions of people and reducing many cities to rubble in Europe and Asia.

Looking back after that war, Winston Churchill said, "There was never a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action." The earlier it was done, the less it would have cost.

At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said.

That point came in 1936 -- three years before World War II began -- when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties.

At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance.

Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler's aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

"Moral paralysis" came from many things. The death of a million French soldiers in the First World War and disillusionment with the peace that followed cast a pall over a whole generation.

Pacifism became vogue among the intelligentsia and spread into educational institutions. As early as 1932, Winston Churchill said: "France, though armed to the teeth, is pacifist to the core."

It was morally paralyzed.

History may be interesting but it is the present and the future that pose the crucial question: Is America today the France of yesterday?

We know that Iran is moving swiftly toward nuclear weapons while the United Nations is moving slowly -- or not at all -- toward doing anything to stop them.

It is a sign of our irresponsible Utopianism that anyone would even expect the UN to do anything that would make any real difference.

Not only the history of the UN, but the history of the League of Nations before it, demonstrates again and again that going to such places is a way for weak-kneed leaders of democracies to look like they are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing.

The Iranian leaders are not going to stop unless they get stopped. And, like Hitler, they don't think we have the guts to stop them.

Incidentally, Hitler made some of the best anti-war statements of the 1930s. He knew that this was what the Western democracies wanted to hear -- and that it would keep them morally paralyzed while he continued building up his military machine to attack them.

Iranian leaders today make only the most token and transparent claims that they are building "peaceful" nuclear facilities -- in one of the biggest oil-producing countries in the world, which has no need for nuclear power to generate electricity.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and its international terrorist allies will be a worst threat than Hitler ever was. But, before that happens, the big question is: Are we France? Are we morally paralyzed, perhaps fatally?

Democrats Can't Handle the Good News

By David Limbaugh
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Very good news is coming out of Iraq. Not surprisingly, this hasn’t caused a change of heart among the Democratic leadership. It hasnt even given them pause. One wonders if they are capable of hearing such news anymore.

The Times Online reports that Al Qaeda is facing rebellion from within its ranks. Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a persons face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of Al Qaeda are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood.

Some of these junior Al Qaeda members are said to be repulsed by the gratuitous, barbaric violence. One said, I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done.

The good news doesn’t stop here. Al Qaeda is not only facing internal dissension, but evidence is also emerging that other ethnic forces formerly friendly to Al Qaeda are changing their tune. Iraqi locals are denying Al Qaeda the sanctuary they need to operate. Lt. Col Stephen Michael, commander of a 700-troop battalion in Doura, says, Al Qaedas days are numbered, and right now he is scrambling.

This news, says the Times, comes out of Doura. But it is part of a wider trend that has started in other Al Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement.

Along the same lines, The Washington Times reports that U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders in Taji, Iraq, to join forces against Al Qaeda and other extremists, which represents an extension of a policy already implemented in Anbar province that has transformed the security situation there.

This isn't some flimsy handshake deal. Tribal leaders agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from Sunni and Shiite extremists. Its also significant that tribal forces approached U.S. forces to initiate this agreement.

Al Qaedas inhumanity is not the only reason things are beginning to change in Iraq. The reports clearly indicate that the increased number of U.S. forces in Doura has made the locals feel it's less dangerous for them to turn toward us. These reports are direct confirmation that the surge strategy is working.

The Washington Times also reports -- surely much to the chagrin of war naysayers who have gloated that we have been greeted not as liberators but occupiers -- that U.S. soldiers walking through Sunni villages have been greeted warmly, with locals shaking the soldiers' hands and kissing their cheeks. Just a month ago, according to Sgt. Richard Fisk, every single one of these people was shooting at us.

Has any of this good news coming out of Iraq prompted Democrats to rethink their opposition to victory?

A brief survey of recent headlines reveals quite the opposite. Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would press forward on legislation to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, despite the Democrats failed efforts last week to pass such a bill. He also said Republicans who voted against withdrawal of our troops were engaged in partisan gamesmanship. If that isn’t a textbook case of psychological projection, I’ve never seen one.

Meanwhile, Senator Russ Feingold told NBCs Tim Russert that he wants Congress to censure President Bush for his management of the Iraq War and his assault on the Constitution. While Reid didn’t readily warm to the idea of a censure, he did say that the president already has the mark of the American people that he’s the worst president we’ve ever had. How’s that for rising above partisanship and supporting your commander in chief during wartime?

Elsewhere, that great patriot from San Francisco, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided President Bush’s call for congressional Democrats to rise above partisanship. Like Reid, Pelosi said the American people have lost faith in Bush and she will continue to cause Congress to vote to end this war every chance she gets.

Speaking of partisanship, news reports around the web demonstrate that while the Bush administration and our armed forces are doing everything they can to accomplish serious, non-partisan business in Iraq in furtherance of the nonpartisan goal of promoting our national security, Democratic leaders are bogging down the administration in frivolous investigations over matters that aren’t even arguably illegal.

In other news, Democratic presidential candidates are traveling the country trying to outdo each other in the nonpartisan activity of pandering to illegal immigrants for their votes (Obama has gone so far as to court La Raza). Other party leaders are trying to develop strategies to unburden the party of its image as the party of abortion. Of course, they're not doing anything to unburden themselves of the party's moral failure on it.

That concludes our report.

Continuing the Green Revolution

Agricultural biotech has greatly improved human life. But we've still got a long way to go.

By Norman E. Borlaug
Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Persistent poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries, changing global climatic patterns, and the use of food crops to produce biofuels, all pose new and unprecedented risks and opportunities for global agriculture in the years ahead.

Agricultural science and technology, including the indispensable tools of biotechnology, will be critical to meeting the growing demands for food, feed, fiber and biofuels. Plant breeders will be challenged to produce seeds that are equipped to better handle saline conditions, resist disease and insects, droughts and waterlogging, and that can protect or increase yields, whether in distressed climates or the breadbaskets of the world. This flourishing new branch of science extends to food crops, fuels, fibers, livestock and even forest products.


Over the millennia, farmers have practiced bringing together the best characteristics of individual plants and animals to make more vigorous and productive offspring. The early domesticators of our food and animal species--most likely Neolithic women--were also the first biotechnologists, as they selected more adaptable, durable and resilient plants and animals to provide food, clothing and shelter.

In the late 19th century the foundations for science-based crop improvement were laid by Darwin, Mendel, Pasteur and others. Pioneering plant breeders applied systematic cross-breeding of plants and selection of offspring with desirable traits to develop hybrid corn, the first great practical science-based products of genetic engineering.

Early crossbreeding experiments to select desirable characteristics took years to reach the desired developmental state of a plant or animal. Today, with the tools of biotechnology, such as molecular and marker-assisted selection, the ends are reached in a more organized and accelerated way. The result has been the advent of a "Gene" Revolution that stands to equal, if not exceed, the Green Revolution of the 20th century.

Consider these examples:

• Since 1996, the planting of genetically modified crops developed through biotechnology has spread to about 250 million acres from about five million acres around the world, with half of that area in Latin America and Asia. This has increased global farm income by $27 billion annually.

• Ag biotechnology has reduced pesticide applications by nearly 500 million pounds since 1996. In each of the last six years, biotech cotton saved U.S. farmers from using 93 million gallons of water in water-scarce areas, 2.4 million gallons of fuel, and 41,000 person-days to apply the pesticides they formerly used.

• Herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans have enabled greater adoption of minimum-tillage practices. No-till farming has increased 35% in the U.S. since 1996, saving millions of gallons of fuel, perhaps one billion tons of soil each year from running into waterways, and significantly improving moisture conservation as well.

• Improvements in crop yields and processing through biotechnology can accelerate the availability of biofuels. While the current emphasis is on using corn and soybeans to produce ethanol, the long-term solution will be cellulosic ethanol made from forest industry by-products and products.

However, science and technology should not be viewed as a panacea that can solve all of our resource problems. Biofuels can reduce dependence on fossil fuels, but are not a substitute for greater fuel efficiency and energy conservation. Whether we like it or not, gas-guzzling SUVs will have to go the way of the dinosaurs.

So far, most biotechnology research and development has been carried out by the private sector and on crops and traits of greatest interest to relatively wealthy farmers. More biotechnology research is needed on crops and traits most important to the world's poor--crops such as beans, peanuts, tropical roots, bananas, and tubers like cassava and yams. Also, more biotech research is needed to enhance the nutritional content of food crops for essential minerals and vitamins, such as vitamin A, iron and zinc.


The debate about the suitability of biotech agricultural products goes beyond issues of food safety. Access to biotech seeds by poor farmers is a dilemma that will require interventions by governments and the private sector. Seed companies can help improve access by offering preferential pricing for small quantities of biotech seeds to smallholder farmers. Beyond that, public-private partnerships are needed to share research and development costs for "pro-poor" biotechnology.

Finally, I should point out that there is nothing magic in an improved variety alone. Unless that variety is nourished with fertilizers--chemical or organic--and grown with good crop management, it will not achieve much of its genetic yield potential.

Democrat equals defeat

By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, July 23, 2007

“Sagging ratings may not hurt Democrats,” the headline of a recent AP story proclaimed triumphantly. According to the political strategists cited in the piece, historically low Congressional approval ratings are attributable to “widespread anger over the war in Iraq, and lawmakers’ inability to change the war’s course.” Therefore, the experts concluded, “Republicans are still far more vulnerable than Democrats.”

Put aside the inconvenient fact that Congress’ ratings have been even lower than those of the war’s chief proponent, President George W. Bush. To the extent that Republican vulnerability on war-related issues remains, it means only one thing: They’ve failed to communicate a very simple truth – that Democratic leadership means fecklessness and defeat when it comes to the war in Iraq in particular, and the war on terror generally.

Start with the war in Iraq. After hosting the Senate’s sleepover last week designed to dramatize Democrat opposition to the war, Senator Harry Reid pulled the defense authorization bill from Senate consideration. As a result, he effectively denied a 3.5 percent pay increase to the men and women of the U.S. military, delayed the modernization of their equipment, and stymied the passage of important legislation intended to address the care of wounded soldiers. As Senator John McCain pointed out, all this occurred because the Democrats failed to circumvent the debate that will occur in September when General Petraeus reports on the results of the surge. Shouldn’t the Republicans be ensuring that voters know this is what Democrats mean when they talk about “supporting the troops”?

Later in the week, presidential candidate Barack Obama opined that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn’t a sufficient reason for keeping American troops there, noting that such a rationale would mean that troops should be deployed in places like the Congo and the Sudan. Republicans should be observing, loudly, that the statement is telling. Apparently, one of the Democratic presidential frontrunners sees no need to honor the moral obligation the United States has assumed in the wake of its liberation of Iraq and the accompanying exhortations to Iraqi citizens to fight back against terrorists – terrorists who, if free to do so, would begin by slaughtering those who had accepted America’s invitation to support democracy and freedom.

Likewise remarkable was the candidate’s obvious willingness to ignore the unique strategic importance of Iraq as a potential tinderbox igniting Middle East warfare in the event of a premature withdrawal, and as ground zero in the war on terror, at least according to Al Qaeda’s leadership. In fact, the recently released National Intelligence Estimate characterized Al Qaeda in Iraq as the terrorist group’s “most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland” – but again, that simply doesn't seem to matter to the Democrats.

Republicans need to emphasize that the Democrats’ lack of seriousness isn't limited to the war in Iraq; it extends to the larger war on terror, as well. That point was again driven home last week, as well, when through the manipulation of Senate rules, Democrats managed to exploit a legislative technicality to block inclusion of the “John Doe” amendment in the 9/11 security bill. The amendment, designed to protect well-meaning tipsters from being victimized by frivolous lawsuits when they report suspicious behavior that could indicate the existence of terrorist plots, was thwarted by those who apparently believe that the potential dangers of “racial profiling” exceed those of a terrorist attack. It’s indicative of where Democratic priorities lie.

As in every conflict, there have no doubt been tragic mistakes, problems and misjudgments both in Iraq and in the larger war on terror. But to the extent that American voters are left to conclude that Democratic policies are preferable to Republican in these dangerous times, Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. After all, Republicans have a compelling case to make – of Democrat power-mongering, politics-playing, and profound lack of seriousness in protecting the American people and their vital national security interests, both at home and abroad. Any party that isn't capable of explaining this straightforward narrative to the voters – well, perhaps it actually deserves to lose. Democrat equals Defeat. Republicans: Remember it, recite it, and repeat it – until voters understand how dangerous Democrat “leadership” in the war on terror really is.

Comments

Check the comment from Klasher5 after the last post. I read his/her only post on his blog so you don't have to. It's nothing but idiot babble posted by some 17 year-old pseudo anarchist. At least that's my assumption based on the maturity/coherency level.

One thing: notice how these coward punks never leave any way to get in contact with them? It's better anyway - if you try to talk sense with a moron, you're the one that comes off looking like a knucklehead.

They Don't Really Support the Troops

The latest from the New Republic and the Nation.
By William Kristol

Cindy Sheehan, mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq, emerged on the American political scene two years ago. Distraught and unstable, she was shamelessly exploited by opponents of George W. Bush and the war while such exploitation seemed to pay political benefits. When she became an embarrassment, she, like others before her, was tossed onto the trash heap of history by her progressive minders.

Sheehan was useful to the antiwar left in a particular way. As Jonathan Cohn put it in the September 12, 2005, New Republic, "Sheehan's value isn't as a barometer of public opinion or as a source of foreign policy wisdom. It's as proof of one very simple point: that a person can criticize the war and still support the troops."

It's unclear that Sheehan was particularly interested in "supporting the troops"--unless one means by that lamenting the fate of the troops as victims. The fact that relatively few soldiers see themselves as victims, the fact that few families understand their loved ones' service and sacrifices in that light--that didn't matter. What mattered to the left was that it was dangerous politically not to "support the troops." Of course the antiwar left hated what the troops were doing, fighting the enemy in Iraq, and they hated the troops' goal, victory in Iraq. So "supporting the troops" meant feeling sorry for them, or pretending to--something antiwar politicians and media did with great hand-wringing and hoopla.

With the ongoing progress of the surge, and the obvious fact that the vast majority of the troops want to fight and win the war, the "support-the-troops-but-oppose-what-they're-doing" position has become increasingly untenable. How can you say with a straight face that you support the troops while advancing legislation that would undercut their mission and strengthen their enemies?

You can't. So those on the cutting edge of progressive opinion are beginning to give up on even pretending to support the troops. Instead, they now slander the troops.

Two progressive magazines have taken complementary approaches in this effort. In its July 30 issue, the Nation has a 24-page article based on interviews with 50 Iraq veterans. The piece allegedly reveals "disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq"--indeed, it claims that the war has "led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis." Needless to say, the anecdotal evidence in the article comes nowhere close to supporting this claim. There are a few instances of out-of-control behavior, some routine fog-of-war and brutality-of-war incidents, and much that is simply trivial. The picture is unpleasant, as one would expect--but it comes nowhere close to living up to the authors' billing: "The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise."

Since the Nation has held this view of every American war (except when we were fighting side-by-side with Stalin's Soviet Union), and loves nothing more than accounts of American war crimes, its story is no surprise. At least they interviewed real soldiers on the record. The New Republic, in its July 23 issue, takes a different tack. Its slander of American soldiers appears to be fiction presented as fact, behind a convenient screen of anonymity.

A column entitled "Shock Troops" is said to be the work of "Scott Thomas"--"the pseudonym for a soldier currently serving in Baghdad." "Thomas" colorfully describes three sets of alleged misdeeds he and his buddies committed in Baghdad: They humiliate a woman in a military dining hall who has been disfigured in an IED explosion (the woman "wore an unrecognizable tan uniform, so I couldn't really tell whether she was a soldier or a civilian contractor"); they discover human remains and one private spends a day and night playing around with a child's skull ("which even had chunks of hair"), amusing his fellow soldiers; and one private routinely drives a Bradley Fighting Vehicle recklessly and uses the vehicle to kill stray dogs.

My colleague Michael Goldfarb raised questions about this account in a July 18 post on The Weekly Standard website, asking for assistance from soldiers and veterans in assessing the truth of the stories told by "Scott Thomas." Within a day, dozens of active duty soldiers and veterans had come forward to point out errors, implausibility, and indeed the well-nigh-impossibility (in the case of the Bradley) of what was claimed. The editors of the New Republic provided to Goldfarb a couple of allegedly corroborating details--for example, the name of the Forward Operating Base, FOB Falcon, where the taunting of the badly disfigured female IED victim was said to have taken place. Soldiers who served at the base have come forward to say no such woman has been seen there. As we go to press on July 20, the New Republic has said they are investigating their own story, and the mainstream media seem to be hoping against hope that they won't have to cover yet another embarrassing episode of journalistic malpractice.

We at The Weekly Standard are well aware that editors make mistakes. We have made our share. But what is revealing about this mistake is that the editors must have wanted to suspend their disbelief in tales of gross misconduct by American troops. How else could they have published such a farrago of dubious tales?

Having turned against a war that some of them supported, the left is now turning against the troops they claim still to support. They sense that history is progressing away from them--that these soldiers, fighting courageously in a just cause, could still win the war, that they are proud of their service, and that they will be future leaders of this country. They are not "Shock Troops." They are our best and bravest, fighting for all of us against a brutal enemy in a difficult and frustrating war. They are the 9/11 generation. The left slanders them. We support them. More than that, we admire them.