QandO

Heh

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD), facing a tough campaign against Rep. John Thune, is running a new campaign ad back home.

It features him receiving a hug from President Bush!

"This is delightful!" laughed one republican official in New York on Monday morning. "Senator Daschle now concedes supporting the president can score him votes in the fall!"

That's just too funny.

Energy and Progress

In a post last week, I'd noted some very interesting progress being made in the field of alternate-energy development....

Via Dean Esmay, here's some potentially good energy news...

A team of Australian scientists predicts that a revolutionary new way to harness the power of the sun to extract clean and almost unlimited energy supplies from water will be a reality within seven years.

Using special titanium oxide ceramics that harvest sunlight and split water to produce hydrogen fuel, the researchers say it will then be a simple engineering exercise to make an energy-harvesting device with no moving parts and emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants.

It would be the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant energy source ever developed: the main by-products would be oxygen and water. Rooftop panels placed on 1.6 million houses, for example, could supply Australia's entire energy needs.

Meanwhile, the biomass-to-oil project is continuing apace.

In May, Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) said its first commercial plant is selling oil -- equivalent to crude oil No. 4 -- produced from agricultural waste products. The plant currently produces 100 to 200 barrels of oil per day using byproducts from an adjacent turkey processing facility.
[...]
At peak capacity, estimated to occur by the end of this year, the first plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer and solid carbon.

Are these the solutions to our energy problems? Who knows? I remember some scientists a couple decades ago swearing up and down that they had created cold fusion in a jar. Whatever happened to those guys, anyway?

Regardless, it's exactly something like this that I believe will render our current environmental and economic energy-related fears an anachronism of another age. With the advancing pace of technology, I fully expect we'll see some serious progress within a couple decades, and implementation within a decade or two after that.

With these advances in technology, the Kyoto Treaty will eventually look a bit like a fellow trying to sell horse carriages right about the time the Model T was being produced.

Apparently, via reader Eric, we know "whatever happened to those guys"....at least, one of the proponents of cold fusion, if not the original University of Utah scientists. Eugene Mallove died--was murdered, actually--just months ago.

Oddly, this occurred just about the time there has been renewed interest in the "Cold Fusion" idea....

Three months ago, the US Department of Energy quietly agreed to examine what cold fusion supporters say is increasing evidence -- culminating at a conference at MIT last summer -- that the reaction exists and is reproducible. If the agency agrees, it will likely mean an injection of both funding and legitimization for the forgotten research.

Is there anything to it? I'm certainly unable to say--sure, I've read Stephen Hawking, but mostly so I could leave the book laying about where people might see it--but one has to believe that it's exactly these kind of researchers--and not a government program to mandate fuel standards, etc--who will drag us out of the age of dangerous dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Those magnificent scientists in their flying cars.

Idiots

National Review's Rich Lowry went marching with the protestors in New York yesterday. He had some interesting conversations, like the one below:

A kid was holding a sign, "Stop the war on youth, from here to Najaf."

"So," I asked, "do you support al Sadr?"

"I do as long as he's resisting U.S. imperialism."

"OK, so you support Islamic fundamentalism?"

"No," he said, walking away.

"Well, he's an Islamic fundamentalist," I said.

He came back up to me, "Just because you support the youth doesn't mean you side with an extremist."

"Sadr is an Islamic extremist, he's very clear about it."

"It's their mosque."

"He seized the mosque by force!"

"You're wrong," he said. "He supports elections."

"No, he doesn't! He opposes elections."

"Well," he said, walking away again, "they are U.S.-supported elections. Of course he opposes U.S.-supported elections."

Then, this goateed, cigarette-smoking little Chomsky walked off for good.

You can always reason with a Lefty. You can always reason with a brick wall for all the good it'll do ya.

Good grief

I mean come on, is this a bit over the top or what?

A New Jersey game called "Wack the Iraq," where players fire paintballs at people dressed as Arabs, has drawn ire from Arab groups after the city failed to convince the operator to change its name this summer.

The City of Wildwood, a seaside resort in southern New Jersey popular with summer vacationers, said the game would continue to operate until the end of this summer holiday season, but would change its name when it returns next year, according to Fred Wager, commissioner of public affairs and public safety for Wildwood.

At best its in bad taste. It certainly and justifiably gives Arab anti-defamation organizations a reason to complain (and they are).

They should know better.

I don't understand why they didn't, instead, run up the tri-color and call it "Frag the Frog".

No one would have said a word.

That's what I call enthusiasm!

By the way, I noticed this advertisement running on The Nation's web site:

Most of it, of course, is the same old anti-Bush stuff the Left lives for these days. What is really amusing is the pro-Kerry bit in the ad. "John Kerry: The Lesser Evil 'We'll go backwards less fast!'"

That encapsulates perfectlyThe Nation's--and the Hard Left's--political views. But, let's not pretend that it's the kind of slogan that will draw people to the polls on Nov 2.

I think this speaks volumes about Kerrys actual chances of winning. When the best thing your most fervent supporters can say about you is that you'll lead the nation to hell slightly slower than your opponent, then you'd probably better not hold your breath on election day, waiting for people to start lining upoutside their polling places at 5 a.m.

Clinton can empathize with Kerry

Yes, Bill Clinton knows how it feels to have his integrity questioned. The problem is he still doesn't realize the difference between an attack based in truth and an attack based in fiction.

From an exchange he and Geraldo Rivera (born Gerald Rivers) had on Fox.

RIVERA: Quickly comment on the swift boat controversy's effectiveness and John Kerry in the polls etc.?

CLINTON: Well I think there has been too much controversy or discussion about the politics of it and little about its merits. All the guys that were on the boat with him say he told the truth. The records say he told the truth. There have been no serious disputes about any of the incidents in which he earned his medals. The ad was paid for by a big supporter of the president and the campaign's lawyer and one of the military advisers participate accurately in it and it was wrong. It was false witness.

RIVERA: Appropriate on a Sunday — you're about to give a sermon, but you have been a victim of slings and arrows. They don't necessarily have to be true to be effective.

CLINTON: That's why I think we need to answer back. But I think, I think in the beginning John couldn't believe it. I mean after all the guys that were on the boat with him were up there on stage with him including some that were probably Republicans — they just knew him and if you've never been through this kind of thing before, where people question your integrity and your very core — it's disorienting, but I think he's got a good answer. The facts are on his side and he'll prevail.

Note: the record doesn't at all say he told the truth, not if that record is contained in "Tour of Duty". You see, it is that book which spurred this reaction by the Swift Boat Vets. It is rountinely ignored when the Kerry partisans try to defend Kerry's record. And the record certainly points to him claiming he was in Cambodia on Christmas eve, even when his own boat crew won't support it.

But that's the apparent DNC strategy. Talk in generalities about his "record" being supported and ignore the facts brought forth by the Swift Boat Vets. Take as gospel the statements of the Kerry crew and dismiss as heresay or lies the statements of men, some of whom rose to flag rank, who were there as well.

Never mind the fact that Alston has been proven to have not been on Kerry's boat during the Silver Star incident. Ignore the fact that the Kerry campaign has used an incident which happened to Ted Peck as one in which John Kerry was involved. Per the talking points, stress "the record supports John Kerry".

Says Clinton: "...if you've never been through this kind of thing before, where people question your integrity and your very core — it's disorienting, but I think he's got a good answer. The facts are on his side and he'll prevail."

If the facts are on his side, then all he as to do is sign an SF 180 and trot them out. As for Kerry's core, it'd be nice if someone would do us all the favor of identifying it.

I've been trying and with him on both sides of just about everything, I can't find it.

Maybe we ought to look at his Senate record?

"I voted for the 87 million before I voted against it".

Nevermind.

The President: Economic Czar?

Robert Samuelson tries to deflate a myth that has always irked me, too: The idea that the president has some kind of effective control over the economy.

Politicians, the press and the public all buy into this notion. Unfortunately, it isn't even a half-truth. More like a sixteenth. A president's policies do affect the economy. But they're just one of many influences. The others (including the business cycle, technology and the Federal Reserve) usually dominate.

You'd think this would be common knowledge, but it's not. The president has become a totemic figure, in whom resides all our hopes and fears, even our economic ones. Hence, if job growth isn't fast enough, it's because the president is at fault.

As Samuelson demonstrates, though, much of what happens in the economy is completely outside of the control of the president, or, for that matter, anyone else in government.

Over the long term, budgets should be balanced. But in an economic downturn, they should move toward deficit to stimulate private spending. Well, you can't fault Bush there. In fiscal 2000, the surplus was $236 billion; for fiscal 2004, the Congressional Budget Office projects a $422 billion deficit. It's possible to condemn (as many Democrats do) Bush's pro-rich tax cuts. A more middle-class tilt might have translated into more consumer spending. It's also possible to retort (as many Republicans do) that Democrats would have moved more slowly toward deficits. Regardless, the tax cuts bolstered private spending. But the resulting economic growth produced fewer jobs than expected. Why?

Although outsourcing could be the reason, it probably isn't. The stories about software jobs and call centers moving to India aren't make-believe. But the numbers are small. Charles Schultze of the Brookings Institution concludes that perhaps 155,000 to 215,000 U.S. service jobs shifted abroad between late 2000 and 2003. Similarly, Schultze reports that government surveys attribute only about 4 percent of mass layoffs in the past two years to "import competition" and "relocation overseas." Even if these estimates are too low, they suggest that the impact of job loss abroad is exaggerated, writes Schultze.

The bigger cause of slow job growth, he contends, is higher productivity. Companies and workers got more efficient. That's ultimately good; it raises living standards. But higher productivity can temporarily lower employment. Fewer people are needed to do the same work, and new jobs don't instantly materialize. From late 1995 to late 2000, productivity (output per hour worked) grew 2.6 percent annually. During the next three years, annual growth averaged 4.1 percent. If it had stayed at the lower level, there'd be 2 million more jobs, estimates Schultze. Unemployment would be about 5 percent.

Of course, if there is a good unemployment report for August, the truth won't stop Bush from taking credit for it. Or for Kerry to blame Bush for it if the numbers are bad.

Evil Bush

Writing in The Nation, Bill Greider gives us a wonderful look into the mindset of the Hard Left as the election approaches. While reading it, it struck that Krauthammer's right. These guys need therapy, because they are already living in an odd fantasy world where George W. Bush will tell any lie, and commit any act to get himself re-elected, where he runs a vast right-wing conspiracy that uses the power of the government to instill fear and loathing of our enemies.

The Bush campaign strategy is already in play before the GOP convention. The President runs on fear and character assassination--big fear and big lies. While Bush's claims and insinuations are utterly distant from the truth, the strategy can't be dismissed, because Republicans are so experienced at this kind of politics. GOP marketing proceeds on a cynical assumption that voters can be moved by the brazen repetition of evocative falsehoods and broad-brush caricature. Their model is 1988, when Bush's daddy used the racist "Willie Horton" ads and "card-carrying member of the ACLU" to defenestrate Michael Dukakis, a decent and capable governor they turned into a national joke.

For big fear, Bush Junior has the federal government at his disposal, and he's using it to pump up anxieties. Does anyone think the "Ashcroft alert," based on old and murky material, was anything more than a thematic tuneup for the fall campaign? Nor was the White House necessarily upset by the headlines about FBI agents chasing after antiwar protesters who might be planning "violent" actions at the GOP convention. Anything that polarizes public opinion about unknown dangers is assumed to help Bush. Meantime, his war planners are suddenly escalating the "threat" rhetoric surrounding Iran and its nuclear bomb-making. Anything that changes the conversation from Iraq can be helpful too.

For personal slander, the Bush regime is hurling mud at Kerry's brightest armor--his sterling reputation as a decorated Vietnam War hero. The Swift Boat veterans attacking Kerry are clearly agents of the Republican machine--financed by Bush money boys and already exposed for multiple lies and distortions. The well-coordinated attack has produced a media tempest, but this is August, the doldrums between conventions, and we can't yet know how much real damage may be done.

What this farfetched smear demonstrates for sure, however, is the President's desperation. The man will do anything (didn't we already know that?). If Kerry is smart, he can turn this latest hit job into an excellent opportunity. Since Bush has raised the question of character and honesty, by all means let's talk about it. Kerry should open every speech with that line and then review the shameful evidence of Bush's mendacious character, from the fictitious threats from Iraq to the 5 million jobs his rich-guy tax cuts were going to produce for ordinary Americans. Which candidate trashes the truth? By all means let the election be decided on that question.

This is paranoia. There's simply no other word for it. I mean, sure, it's an amusing kind of paranoia; the kind that makes you smile as you see 100,000 people march down the streets of Manhattan, claiming that civil liberties are being smashed, just like in Germany back in the 30s. Marching in front of gas stations where regular unleaded is selling for $2.00+ per gallon while carrying "No Blood for Oil" signs. That kind of cognitive dissonance is just too precious for words.

Mr. Bush seems to invoke that kind of cognitive dissonance though. Any good Lefty can, without even pausing for breath, launch into a harangue describing George W. Bush as a simpleton who needs a brace of Secret Service agents to help him into his pants every morning, then, in the very next sentence, describes him as the global mastermind of a fascist conspiracy to take over the world.

I mean, it's like the freakin' mystery of the trinity, where one God is eternally existent in three separate persons. To the Left, the mystery of George W. Bush is that he is both Forrest Gump and Ernst Stavro Blofeld, which is really quite revealing about the mental Weltanschaung of the Left, because, in the real world, no one person can be both an idiot and a criminal mastermind. That makes no difference to the Left, though. In W they see every single negative character trait. If there is any way in which Mr. Bush can be deficient, he is.

It's almost enough to make you want to round all the Lefties up and stick 'em in dank, cheerless prison cells. At least that way they'd feel the warm glow of knowing they were right, that they were targets of the new fascism. That'd probably be more mentally healthy for them, because at least they would no longer have to reconcile their overblown world-view with reality. Of course, we won't do anything like that. We'll leave them free to march in the streets, which will keep the flames of their paranoia high, as they wait each evening for the midnight knock on the door from the State Security goons; a knock that never quite comes.

I can only imagine how crazy these people will be if Mr. Bush wins reelection in a landslide. I mean, they're already nutty now. We may be in for a repeat of the 1960s.

Blogs threaten main stream media's exlusive hold on news and opinion

I think John Podhoretz has a good point here, and, frankly, I agree with his conclusion, but first check out this part of his op/ed about the left's bottled up rage:

This election is about one thing and one thing only: Which of the two candidates is best suited to be this nation's commander in chief.

And as we speak, a 2004 election plotline is developing among those who wish to see George W. Bush defeated. The plotline is this: The efforts by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to cast doubt on John Kerry's war record may be the tipping point of this campaign in Bush's favor. And if indeed that is so, the rage that liberals and Democrats will direct toward Bush will be something terrible to see.

The election is about who is best suited to be commander in chief. John Kerry made sure of that when he did his hokey "reporting for duty" schtick. With his salute and his "band of brothers" he made it about that. It appears he may rue the day he did so. But then faced with running on his 20 year Senate record or his 120 day Vietnam record, he really had little choice, did he?

Enter the Swift Boat Vets (who had been ignored by the media as well as the Kerry campaign since May when they first announced their presence) and their attack on Kerry's fitness to be c-in-c. Since then the SBV's effect has been slowly eroding Kerry's support.

Despite the lack of any evidence that the Bush campaign or Republicans questioned the patriotism of either McCain or Cleland in their last elections, those claims have now passed into legend among the left, just as the belief that the use of Willie Horton was at the behest of Bush 41 (instead of first used by Al Gore) and that Bush 43 "stole" the election.

What the Swift Boat Vets will have done, if Kerry loses, is add to the impotent rage felt by those on the left.

At a panel discussion yesterday on the press and the election at the Harvard Club, two media doyens — Joe Klein of Time and David Gergen of U.S. News — pronounced themselves frightened by this prospect and the damage it might do to our democracy.

One only has to revist our fairly recent past to understand why Klein and Gergen feel that way. The '60s and early '70s were an era of leftist violence the likes of which this country hadn't seen before. The Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, the Symbionese Liberation Army were staples of that violence. The frustration of the left at their inability to have their way spawned violent groups who murdered policemen and destroyed property. Will we see a return of the "Days of Rage?"

But that wasn't really Podhoretz's point in this little epistle. It was more about the entity known as the "main stream media" and its future.

Others on the panel — Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal and Jill Abramson of The New York Times — fretted about the capacity of the mainstream media to play the role of fact-finding truth-teller in an age dominated by cable news and the Internet.

I was on the panel too, and I feel like I was the only one who didn't arrive at the Harvard Club riding on my pet dinosaur.

I've been listening to mainstream-media types talk about the terrible threat posed to the news business by one new phenomenon or other since I began my career 22 years ago. The complaint is invariably, and drearily, the same: Whatever is new is bad because it supposedly lowers the historically high standards of the mainstream media.

The last two years in particular have seen the explosion of a new medium — the personal Internet newspaper, or blog — that has already and will forever change the way people get their information.

This is a thrilling development — unless you are a mainstream-media Big Fish.

Interesting. So blogs are a "threat to the news business"? Call me crazy, but it seems to me that the main stream media is more of a threat to the news business than blogs are. Its they who the blogs are finding to be, in many cases, "factually challenged". It is blogs who are exposing institutional biases the MSM has been denying for years. It is blogs who are picking up stories that the MSM would prefer to spike.

What blogs are is a threat to business as usual among the MSM. Blogs refuse to let the MSM have the exclusive rights to what is and isn't news.

And that scares the hell out of them. So we see this appeal to "journalistic standards" and how they're hobbled by them while we nasty bloggers aren't.

Guess they've never heard of commenters and the instant feedback they bring.

Podhoretz points to the perfect case study. The event which has finally, given the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the MSM about irresponsible journalism, pushed them over the brink and made them recognize and acknowledge the threat to their monopoly.

The success of the Swift-boat vets' ads is the tale of the triumph of the nation's alternative media. The mainstreamers didn't want to touch the story with a 10-foot pole, and they didn't. But the alternative media did. Amateur reporters and fact-gatherers offered independent substantiation for some of the charges. It turned out the criticisms of the Swifties weren't quite so easily dismissed.

Because there was new information coming out every day, there was more and more to discuss on talk radio and cable news channels. And the story just wouldn't go away, because millions of people were interested in it.

This democratization of the news is clearly a good thing, if only because it increases available sources of information in a democracy.

But it isn't a good thing if you're a proud part of an Establishment whose authority is being eroded and whose control of the marketplace is being successfully challenged.

No, it scares the hell out of them. Just as Gutenberg's bible took the exclusive interpretation of the bible out of the hands of priests and "democratized" it by putting it into "everyman's" hands, so has the internet and blogs changed the way news is reported and consumed.

And it worries the big boys to death.

What these Establishment-media types will never do — what they can never do — is consider the possibility that the 24-hour news cycle and the rise of talk radio and the Internet are all positive developments.

And I would argue they can't consider that possibility — not only because their platforms are slowly sliding into the quicksand, but because these alternative phenomena have been of great benefit to conservative ideas, anti-liberal attitudes and Republican politicians.

They hate the Swift-boat story. Hate it with a passion. Some of it's based in genuine conviction. Some of it's patently ideological. And some of it's based in fear. They are worried the bell is beginning to toll for them, and they're right.

Bingo. And its only going to get worse for them.

Elections Futures

The election is a long time away, and, of course, anything can happen. But take a look at the Sunday closing prices for the Presidential election from the futures markets from Tradesports, based on the closing Sunday prices¹:

Bush.....58.0
Kerry....42.6

That can't be good news for the Kerry campaign. I don't think the polls are accurately reflecting the outcome of the election. I think, all other things being equal, Bush is headed for a landslide. And, evidently, people who are putting their money where their mouth is are thinking the same thing.
__________
¹ I'm writing this at 22:28 PDT, but, because this is an East Coast blog, it will appear as an 30 Aug 04 Entry.

Booze Blogging

Even though I'm not a heavy drinker by any stretch of the imagination, there are certain things that I simply have to have around the house, when it comes to booze. But, why blog about it? Well, first, because sometimes, you need to have a little break from public policy. Second, because The Lovely Christine is out of town this weekend, so I have nothing else to do but get lit, which, to be frank, I am doing this evening with a vengeance. (Sleeping alone is very unpleasant. It's even more so when the one you usually sleep with is the best thing that's ever happened to you in your whole life, and she's not there.)

One of the best things about living in Escondido, CA, is that one of California's historic wineries, the Ferrara Winery, is located here. The Ferraras are the oldest active grape growing, winemaking family in San Diego County, supplying wines to California since 1932. Now, the thing about the Ferrara winery is that they offer two products that are unavailable everywhere else in the world: California Nectar da Luz and Almond da Luz.

The Nectar da Luz is a ported wine that has been kind of…uh…brandy-ized (18% alcohol by volume). It has a sweet initial taste that's almost like pure clover honey that fades to a robust port aftertaste almost like that of a dry sack sherry. It's really indescribable, and indescribably good. It is just the perfect after-dinner aperitif. It's even more perfect if you pour it over strawberries and vanilla ice cream. That's a dessert you can't stop drinking eating.

The Almond da Luz is an amaretto-flavored version of the Nectar da Luz. The flavor is like that of a fine amaretto liqueur, but, again, with the full-bodied aftertaste of a fine port. If you ever happen to be in the San Diego area, and you can get to the Ferrara Winery, I promise you that you will not regret picking up either of these two products. The Ferraras still run the winery as a family business, and Mamma Ferrara will most likely be in the wine store, and will be happy to let you have a free taste of the products, after which, you'll probably sprain your wrist with the speed at which you reach for your wallet.

For those of you who cannot get out to San Diego, I have another recommendation for you. If you are one of the elite members of the sake aficionado community, you will want to go try to pick up a few bottles of Sho Chiku Bai Nigori Sake . Nigoro sake is produced the way sake first appeared when it was brewed for the Imperial Court in Kyoto as well as for most of its 2,000 year history. It is coarsely-filtered and the sweetest of all types of sake. It is especially delicious with very spicy foods. The bottle should be shaken each time before pouring due to the high rice content that settles in the bottom of the bottle. It is available from Takara Sake USA, and comes in 12.7 oz. bottles. If you like sake, this very traditional brew, with its slightly sweet, robust flavor, will be a must-buy on your shopping list.

Of course, it goes without saying that you should--unlike me, this weekend--drink responsibly.

EXACTLY!

Remember when I noted that McCain hadn't condemned the second Swift Boat Vets ad?

Well that's because McCain finally has gotten it right:

Republican U.S. Senator John McCain said Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam are an appropriate subject for political debate.

McCain, 68, of Arizona, said on the CBS News program ``Face the Nation,'' that he disagreed with Kerry throwing his ribbons from his medals on the steps of the U.S. Capitol when he returned from the war.

``Every American is entitled to protest,'' McCain said. ``Whether he did that appropriately'' is a legitimate subject for debate, he said.

Bingo, Senator.

And I define "appropriate protest" as "responsible dissent."

In other words, it is the responsibility of the dissenter to ensure his dissent is based on facts not fiction. Appropriate dissent doesn't spread or propogate lies in order to make its point. It either has factual support or its not appropriate.

That isn't to say there wasn't appropriate and responsible dissent possible about Vietnam. That isn't to say that I disagree with all who were against that war. There were valid arguments to be made. And there were those who made that sort of dissent.

But John Kerry wasn't one of them.

And that is what vets hold against the man.

A spokesman for the Kerry campaign didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

No kidding.

LIVE from New York Its ...

... the prettiest "commie" in Manhattan. Yes folks, one of the many "protestors" in NY today ... and this one has it right. Another ringing Kerry endorsement.

Yes, its a joke (you could only dream it was true). Someone having a bit of fun with everyone (per one source, its the Protest Warriors, but I can't confirm that). Part of the anti-protesting protesting. Check out the web site listed. Its' hilarious and pretty well done.

"Operation RAW" deal

Reader Becky comments on the Kerry testimony before the Senate in 1971 by asking:

Okay, guys. Could you PLEASE just read the ENTIRE transcript of Kerry's testimony instead of a few random quotes from someone's article?

Kerry emphatically stated, at the beginning of his testimony, "...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...."

He was speaking on behalf of a group of Viet Nam vets he met with in Detroit.

Not an unreasonable request and not an unreasonable assumption, if you only limit your research into Kerry’s anti-war, anti-military activities to his testimony. But there’s more .... much more that makes the case that Kerry was indeed indicting the entire military through his activities in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). His testimony was only the most visible of these activities and certainly not the most damning.

As an example of his other activities, let’s start with “Operation RAW” which began on Labor Day, 1970. Organizing flyers seen here and here were sent out.

Note who is among the organizers and among the speakers. As you can see they planned on “forming an infantry unit of company strength” comprised of “Vietnam vets, active duty GIs and other war veterans” and staging a 4 day march from Morristown, NJ to Valley Forge, PA where they’d have a mass protest. On the surface, it sounds pretty benign, doesn’t it?

But the devil is in the details.

There was a reason they formed an “infantry unit of company strength”. It was so they could portray American infantrymen, every day soldiers, as brutal butchers. Now, the words sound hyperbolic, but they’re not. As Operation RAW moved through each town they enacted their version of a “search and destroy” operation”. As described in one of the flyers, the purpose of this unit was to “dramatize as authentic a picture of a US Army search and destroy mission to the American people as practical."

How did they do this? Well read it straight from the horses’s mouth. As it proclaims in the cite: “This story is taken from material saved by Joe Urgo-VVAW AI. Joe was one of the marchers, a former national officer of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and the first Vietnam vet to travel to Hanoi in support of the revoluntary struggle of the Vietnamese.”

It was Labor Day weekend 1970. At 10:30 a.m. in Doylestown, PA a company of infantry swept into town, seizing and occupying the center of the city, setting up road blocks and taking civilian prisoners. Anyone fleeing was killed, the rest were tortured and then killed for just being there. The younger women were particularly mauled and abused before being killed. At 10:45, once again on alert, the company marched south of town, leaving a trail of bloody bodies and survivors standing in their yards and streets, mute with shock, unbelieving eyes fastened on the departing soldiers. Leaflets lay in the streets like the one below.

Beginning in Morristown, New Jersey, 150 combat veterans marched through the countryside toward Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The veterans, who held 110 purple heart medals between them, had enlisted the help of the aptly named Philadelphia Guerilla Theater Company to go ahead of the march and plant themselves in the villages and towns along the march route. Sweeping through the rural back countries of New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania, the vets wore as much of their combat fatigues and battle gear as they had been able to scrape together. Their "infantry company" was realistically armed with toy rifles.

As the column of veterans passed through the communities, they cordoned off the villages, "interrogated," "tortured," and "shot" the actors posing as civilians, and in general tried to recreate the brutal realities of war. The towns and roads were mapped out in advance and the skits were pre-arranged so that as the company surrounded a home or a village--with walkie-talkies screaming and vets running all over the place, blood capsules bursting on library steps or in front of stores--there was a sense of realism in the air as these safe rural hamlets were "invaded." The veterans terrified and shocked some people, challenging many others. Of course, some patriots thought that the vets were "disgracing the uniform of the U.S." to bring their message to civilian Amerikkka. One thing was certain: there was no business as usual for those communities on the day the column of vets marched through.

"Amerikkka". No agenda in that spelling, is there?

The flyers they left laying in the street as they departed said the following:

A US INFANTRY COMPANY JUST CAME THROUGH HERE

If you had been Vietnamese

--We might have burned your house
--We might have shot your dog
--We might have shot you
--We might have raped the women
--We might have turned you over to your government for torture
--We might have taken souvenirs from your property
--We might have shot things up a bit
–We might have done all these things to you and your town

If it doesn’t bother you that American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are “gooks”, then picture yourself as one of the silent victims. Help us end the war before they turn your son into a butcher or a corpse.

Signed,

Vietnam Veterans Against the War

Becky claims Kerry’s focused on the “leadership” of the military, not the soldiers.

Now, before you get all crazy...keep in mind one very important thing. Kerry NEVER blaimed the vets for the atrocities comitted. He blamed our LEADERSHIP. Read the whole thing. Read it 3 times. I read it 5 times.

Operation RAW certainly didn’t do that, did it? It was talking about American soldiers. In particular infantry soldiers. It was saying “American soldiers do these things every day”. It said we were the butchers. It said we raped and murdered “every day”.

You know, just another day at the office.

Listed on the organizing flyers for Operation RAW is a partial list of the event sponsors, including Jane Fonda and John Kerry. Listed as an information and transportation sponsor in Boston is John Kerry. Listed as speakers are Jane Fonda and John Kerry.

So I’m sorry Becky, I can read it 50 times, which I most likely have in the last 35 years, but it is only a part of what John Kerry has responsibility for ... and its high time that all of it was exposed. In Operation RAW the only purpose of their “theater” was to paint everyday soldiers in Vietnam as stone-cold butchers and rapists. As war criminals. And nothing could have been further from the truth. That’s what the 2.5 million Vietnam Vets are finally saying.

Read this stuff 3 times, 5 times. It doesn’t matter. The conclusion is inescapable. John Kerry and the VVAW purposely and viciously painted a whole generation of soldiers as baby killing rapists through actions such as Operation RAW.

I haven’t forgotten it and I haven’t forgiven it.

Becky concludes with:

I am angry. I am VERY angry. And that you people can sit back and condemn Kerry for speaking out against an unjust war, for bringing to light the atocities of war that our LEADERSHIP condoned in the name of freedom -- in the name of MY country....I have no words for you, either.

Well I’m very angry as well, Becky.

I’m angry that a nation treated its soldiers the way it did 35 years ago. I’m angry that actions of John Kerry led to that dishonorable treatment. But more than that, I’m angry that now that we who were maligned and smeared by Kerry and the VVAW want to speak out about it, people like you want us to shut up.

Well we’re not going to shut up.

We kept quite about it for all those years and we’re damn tired of living with the lies Kerry and others told about us. We’ve as much right to speak as John Kerry. And we’ve got as much right to tell you and others he was full of crap as any other citizen of this country.

Its not just YOUR country. Its OUR country as well. And this is about how OUR country treated us because of the lies people like John Kerry and the VVAW spread.

When Kerry grows the balls to stand up and tell the Vietnam Vets that he was wrong, he lied and he portrayed them falsely and that he’s sorry for doing so, then perhaps, some real healing can begin.

Until then, I agree with John O’Neill ... he’s unfit for command.

UPDATE: A few images from the VVAW "Operation RAW" march, found in Kerry's book "The New Soldier", depicting American soldiers 'at work' brutalizing and butchering Vietnamese:

Thanks, John Kerry.

1st Blogiversary for QandO [updated]

UPDATE: TrueBlueGal makes us a cake!

________________________________________________________________

I just went back to the old Blogspot version of QandO, and realized....we turn 1 year old today. The first QandO post was 8/29/2003.

Was it a magnificent piece of analysis? A biting insight? A devastating fact-check? Well, not exactly.

First Post Stress.

What to write?
Well, in the absence of ideas, I'll just duck the whole thing by posting this.

That's out of the way.

And, without getting too maudlin, it cannot be overstated how much I appreciate and enjoy the people who have been reading, commenting, emailing and participating for so long.

At any rate, today marks the 1st Blogiversary of QandO. Expensive gifts Congratulatory links, blogrolling, bookmarking and word-of-mouth advertising are not discouraged.

UPDATE: To the newcomers: welcome. Where have you been? For a good idea of what this blog is about, check this latest weekly roundup of our best posts.

NoKo's Latest pop hit? "F***ing USA!"

You've got to see this.

If it hadn't been in the Korean language I'd have sworn it was a MoveOn.org video.

The first part is being explained by a South Korean TV station I assume as they play the video to their audience.

This passes for MTV in North Korea, I guess.

Oh, and lest we forget, North Korea endorses John Kerry.

More from Adm. Schachte

Yesterday, I talked about Admiral (then LT) William Schachte's version of Kerry's skimmer mission here. NRO is carrying a complete statement by Schachte here made on August 27th.

The highlights:

- Per Schachte he was manning the M-60, not Bill Zaldonis.

- All Skimmer missions were his and consisted of two officers and one enlisted man to man the outboard motor.

-Schachte doen't remember the name of the enlisted man on that particular night.

-Schachte says there was no after action report made on that night because there was no hostile fire. AA reports are only required if there is hostile fire.

-Schachte reports that he opened fire with the M-60 and it jammed after a short burst. Kerry fired with the M-16 until it jammed. While Schachte was trying to clear the M-60, Kerry fired the M-79.

As for the Purple Heart, he says:

Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard denied Lt. (jg) Kerry's request. Lt. (jg) Kerry detached our division a few days later to be reassigned to another division. I departed Vietnam approximately three weeks later, and Lt. Cmdr. Hibbard followed shortly thereafter. It was not until years later that I was surprised to learn that Lt. (jg) Kerry had been awarded a Purple Heart for this night.

Badda BOOM!

Pretty damning.

Bomb plot in NY

Developing:

A U.S. citizen and a Pakistani national were arrested in an alleged plot to bomb a subway station in midtown Manhattan and possibly other locations around the city, police said Saturday.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the men were not thought to be connected to al-Qaida or any other international terrorist organization, although he said they expressed hatred for America. The arrests come two days before the start of the Republican National Convention, which is drawing tens of thousands of visitors into the city.

Though there was no clear tie to the convention, authorities moved to arrest the two men before it began, two law-enforcement sources told The Associated Press.

The men had been under police surveillance and had discussed placing explosives at the Herald Square subway station and stations at 42nd and 59th streets, Kelly said. The men never obtained explosives, he said.

One was a US citizen.

Sigh.

Amazing. They apparently were willing to kill many, many people in NY in order to demonstrate the depth of that hate.

What a great purpose in life. Blowing up innocent people on a subway for "hate".

And one was a US citizen?

Kerry and James Warner

I was reading through American Legion Magazine, and came across an interview with Kerry by the staff of ALM. While perusing it, I came across this quote from Kerry in answer to a question about a flag burning amendment:

"James Warner, who was a POW in Hanoi, said in a very eloquent article the Vietnamese showed him the photo of somebody burning the flag and said, "See? You're wrong." And he said, "No, that makes me right, because that shows that in our country, you're free, and that's the meaning of freedom." And the captor got absolutely outraged, purple, and he'll never forget having used that as a way of showing what America stands for."

Well Jim Warner, a Marine Corps F4 pilot shot down over North Vietnam, had some other "very eloquent" things to say when recalling his imprisonment there and a man named Kerry who shamelessly used his name above:

After we had talked for quite sometime the interrogator showed me a transcript of testimony that my mother had given at something called the winter soldier hearings...which I had no idea what these were. I read her testimony, and it wasn't damning, but then I saw some of the other stuff that had gone on at this winter soldier hearing and I wondered how did somebody get my mother persuaded to come, uh, appear at something like this.

And then shortly thereafter he [his interrogator showed] showed my some statements from John Kerry. He said that John Kerry had helped to organize the winter soldier hearings because he was so motivated because he had been an American officer served in the US Navy...and...then he started reading some of the statements that John Kerry made.

I'm sorry I can't quote them, but essentially he accused all of us in Vietnam of being criminals. That everything we had done was criminal. Therefore, of course, the North Vietnamese had told us from the time they got their hands on us that we were criminals, we're not covered by the Geneva Conventions, so it was ok for them to do whatever they wanted to us.

And they told us that they were going to put us on trial, and some of us would be executed....

The interrogator went through all of these statements from John Kerry. And he starts pounding on the table, "Well see here is this Naval officer, he [John Kerry] admits that you are a criminal and that you deserve punishment."

Kerry is indeed shameless. As is obvious, Jim Warner isn't his biggest fan. Kerry used Warner's mother in 1971, and now he uses Warner in 2004.

Would someone please forward this to Teresa Heinz Kerry so she can buy a clue about what's going on concerning her husband and wannabe president?

Weekly QandO Roundup

The best posts of this past week, linked and excerpted in one convenient place. Read the excerpts and--if it interests you--follow the links. Even if you don't follow the link, I think you'll enjoy the excerpts. And, as usual, check the lower right-hand sidebar for Quick Links to other interesting posts around the 'sphere.
_________________________________________________________________


* Swifties and Rood (McQ) - If I were Kerry, I don't think I'd be touting this Rood fellow.

I have to admit I sort of chuckled when I read Rood's account of the action in which Kerry won his Silver Star. It was funny because the first thought that popped in my head was "how can this matter, he wasn't in the same boat as Kerry". This has been an article of faith with the pro-Kerry side in all of this. I'm going to be interested to see how they manage the acceptance of Rood's story while still rejecting the stories of the other Swift boat commanders who served "with" Kerry as Rood did.

Having read the book "Unfit for Command" and Rood's version, I really don't see much in Rood's story that contradicts what was said in the book.

It more of a case of differing opinions about the incident. The book, for instance, points out that Kerry didn't act alone in his pursuit of the wounded VC. Rood confirms that. If I'm not mistaken, "Tour of Duty" alludes to Kerry acting alone.

BTW, that's the one part missing in all of this. Much of the dispute "Unfit for Command" has is with Kerry's biography "Tour of Duty" and its version of the events. Note that the "Tour of Duty" version is not related in any of these articles.

* Swifties and MoveOn (McQ) - One doesn't have to look very hard to find coordination between Kerry and liberal 527s. It's just that, so far, nobody seems interested in that coordination.

But while there is no apparent relationship with the SBVT and Bush, there’s definitely a relationship between John Kerry and “The MoveOn family of organizations”

On June 17, 2003, John Kerry addressed a letter entitled “A letter to MoveOn members from John Kerry” in which he solicited their support and asked them to sign a petition on his web site...

* Suggestion for keeping the peace (Dale Franks) - A suggestion which would allow us to finally move this campaign past 1972.

In order to move the presidential campaign away from what happened or didn't happen in Vietnam 35 years ago, I offer a suggestion. Since the Kerry camp wishes to argue that official Navy records are conclusive proof that Kerry served honorably and with distinction, I suggest that those of us opposed to Kerry offer to accept that argument, as long as the Kerry people accept the logical corollary: the official Air Force records indicating George W. Bush was honorably discharged from his service is conclusive proof that he properly met his obligations as well.

* Media Matters for John Kerry's Election (Jon Henke) - Media Matters tries to prove that Gore won Florida, by citing a study that concluded Bush won Florida. Interesting epistemology.

The only scenarios in which Gore would have won were those involving the loosest possible standards...standards not adopted by most counties. So,yes....if everybody had done something that almost nobody was going to do, Gore would have won.

Well, yes...and--to borrow a line--if we only had eggs, we could all have ham and eggs, if we had ham.

* Iran: Job One for 2005 (Dale Franks) - "They aren't part of the "Axis of evil" for nothing, the Iranians."

Moreover, the mullahs have a series of goals--a vision, if you will--about the world order as it pertains to the Mideast. First and foremost in their minds is the destruction of the "Jewish Entity", that is to say, Israel. Second is the elimination of American power in the region. Third is the imposition of direct Islamic rule--preferable of the Shi'a flavor--all throughout the Mideast. Fourth, and finally, is the expansion of Islam to the West, and eventually, the rest of the world.

These seem like fairly grandiose dreams for a poor, desert country, but, unfortunately, they think otherwise. By their reckoning, God is on their side.

It took WWII to teach Germany that putting "Gott Mit Uns" on the belt buckles of their army uniforms was no guarantee that God actually was with them. The Iranians have, as of yet, undergone no such learning experience.

* Departamento de los Vehículos de Motor (Dale Franks) - We don't tolerate law-breakers round here. We give 'em Driver's licenses. Yes, sir. Law and order, you know.

The basic argument that Democrats have been making is that illegals need licenses, because, right now, they're driving anyway, and they are a public danger. We must, says cedillo, get licenses out to the illegals so that we can be reasonably asssured of their ability to drive safely.

OK, fine, I'm willing to listen to that argument. But, when Cedillo starts shrieking that they absolutely, positively cannot have some sort of distinguishing mark, then he loses me completely. Because then it becomes obvious that this is about something else than safe driving.

There's a reason that Cedillo wants illegals to have the same license that citizens get, and the reason can be described in one phrase: Motor Voter.

* Factchecking Factcheck.org...again (Jon Henke) - Factcheck leaves out some facts. We checked.

FactCheck.org claims the SwiftVets ad is misleading, because "Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others" rather than "claiming first-hand knowledge".

However, of the 6 Kerry statements in the Swift Vets ad, Kerry has claimed firsthand knowledge--even participation--in 3 of them (shooting at civilians, razed villages, and ravaged the countryside), and only claims to have not participated in two of the allegations (those dealing with torture, dismemberment).

* Make. It. Stop. (McQ) - Kerry goes from "bring it on!" to "not in the face!" in record time.

The WSJ notes that back in February, John Kerry felt it was perfectly fine to question the service of his opponent:
[...]
Well fair enough, it is a presidential election which means everything is going to be scrutinized.

But wait. After going after Bush and using his Vietnam service as the centerpiece of his campaign we have Kerry and company playing the vicitim of, you guessed it, the ubiquitous "Republican Smear Machine", or for the older folks, a revival of the "dirty tricks" department first made famous under Nixon.

* Kerry's evolving story (Jon Henke) - a compendium of recent, er, problems with Kerry's story. Plus, the lengths to which partisans will go to ignore them.

With Kerry backpedaling on various stories, this seems like an opportune time for Kerry's supporters to call for an end to Vietnam-era allegations, and Ezra steps up to the plate, saying "Fucking enough".

That is, he's had "enough" of the focus on the SwiftVets Vietnam allegations that have "shone light on everything corrosive, everything vile, everything that turns off Americans not just from voting but from civic participation".

The Bush/AWOL Vietnam allegations? Well, just yesterday, Ezra wanted to focus the debate on "his time AWOL".

Cause that's just different.

* Finally figured it out (McQ) - "A) The NYT deliberately left out some of the report.
B) The NYT writers who used the report had no idea about the meaning of what they were reading."

There was no reported small arms fire around the mine. There was no reported VC KIA or WIA at that time. Those all took place in the previous Mike Force operation, not the mine detonation.

Which explains why the PCFs were able to spend 90 minutes on site, saving the 3 boat and its crew before towing it in and not suffering one single solitary casualty from small arms or any other type of fire.

Of course if the writers at the NYT had bothered to show their source for the claim of the "later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy" to someone who knew what a Mike Strike Force was, or what they apparently did on that operation, they wouldn't look as foolish, as they'd know the VC KIA and WIA were killed and wounded on a previous part of the operation and not at the mine detonation.

* Media Matters for John Kerry's Election (PT 2) (Jon Henke) - Fact-checking Media Matters. (something you really shouldn't have to do to an organization supposedly "devoted" to correcting mistakes.

To their credit, they did cite a credible authority on Purple Heart regulations. To their discredit, they didn't cite all of it. The Military Order of the Purple Heart also includes this requirement for the Purple Heart...

(5) Examples of injuries or wounds which clearly do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart are as follows: [...] (h) Self-inflicted wounds, except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence.

Now, one might credibly make the argument that Kerry was not negligent in standing within the blast radius of his own grenade.....or, one might make the argument that it was negligent. There's room for debate.

But Media Matters called Kondrake's allegation "false" and Kondrake "ignorant of the relevant requirements for awarding a Purple Heart".

That's just wrong. It is not, however, surprising that Media Matters would make such a tendentious argument.

* Why I oppose McCain-Feingold (Dale Franks) - All the good intentions in the world won't solving the unintended consequences of the McCain-Feingold stake in the heart of the 1st ammendment.

All you guys on the Left were piously droning on about the corrupting effects of money, and the other drivel that Senators McCain and Feingold were spouting. The necessity of its passage became an article of faith among Democrats. You ignored warnings that it gutted the first amendment. You ignored warnings that 527s would just take up the slack in soft-money spending. No, you had your starchy white ideal of utopia, and you weren't gonna be happy 'til you got it, and thank God that there are a few Republicans, like Senator McCain, who, unlike the rest of his party, knows how to do the right thing.

Well, you got it. And what has it given you this election year? The Swiftvets.

So, how does campaign finance reform taste now? Does it taste good? Is it yummy? I hope so, because now you're just gonna have to suck on it for a while.

Enjoy.

By the way, I hear the Swiftvets are working on a new ad.

* Misunderestimating W. Again. (Dale Franks) - "the Democrats have underestimated George W. Bush's political skills .... Or, perhaps they've overestimated John Kerry's."

If Kerry reallt wants to stop the bleeding, then he'll have to hold a press conference specifically to invite questions about the Swiftvets ads. But, that's the one thing he simply can't do, because the dangers are too high.

He'll have to cover the whole Cambodia/Magic Hat story. Why does the last entry in his diary from Vietnam indicate he'd never been to Cambodia? How could he mistake Christmas in Cambodia, which was seared--seared!--into his memory? Why did he write about his Cambodia experiences in his writted review of Apocalypse now in 1979? When, exactly, was he in Cambodia? What was he doing?

* Kerry's Economic Spin (Jon Henke) - factchecking John Kerry's economic pessimism.

After 4 years of Democrats complaining--correctly, in many instances--about how the Bush administration is painting a deceptive picture of the economy, it's worth pointing out that the new boss will be the same as the old boss. The Democrats are not upset about the President putting political spin on economic information...they're just upset that it's not their turn.

* The Iranian Problem (Dale Franks) - "Negotiating with a potential enemy who desires nothing you can offer him other than capitualtion, is usually not productive, a fact that is often completely lost on the chattering classes."

...it's hard to take with anything less than a metric ton of salt that Iran isn't seeking to produce a nuclear arsenal.

First, if they were seeking such an arsenal, they certainly wouldn't admit it. Unfortunately, Mr. Ibrahim doesn't explain to us how we can be sure that their denials are being issued because they really aren't trying to produce such weapons, or because they really are. But their rejection of any demands that they stop their uranium enrichment program isn't a positive sign. They are saying, essentially, that it's vitally important that they be able to enrich uranium, which would give them the capability to make nuclear weapons, but that they will never do so.

Because, it would be, you know, wrong.

But, totalitarian states don't have a sterling track record of actually doing what they say they will do. Indeed, quite the opposite is usually the case.

* Are we back in Cambodia for Christmas or not? (McQ) - It's the political equivalent of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - we can either believe what the Kerry camp is currently saying about when/if Kerry was in Cambodia, or we can believe what they were saying yesterday. We cannot believe both at the same time. McQ discusses the various stories....

Another conflicting and unexplainable position. The campaign says he went there on an unspecified date. However, based on Kerry’s own recollections as featured in Brinkley’s book, “his curiosity was never satisfied” which, per the context of the sentence, means he was never in Cambodia ... ever.

Except, well, not quite. You see, two days before, on Meet the Press, Tad Devine, a Kerry advisor, put him back in Cambodia on Christmas.

* McCain-Feingold II (Dale Franks) - Nobody likes to hear "I told you so". But that's no excuse....they need to hear it anyway.

At this point, the best scenario I could possibly hope for is that politics becomes so down and dirty, and so divisive, that Congress goes back and repeals this travesty of a law post-haste. Let, as Mao once said, a thousand flowers bloom. Let the air be filled with the sounds of TV ads of increasing moonbattery. Let every politician running for office have his name, his reputation, and his family savaged by independent ad groups.

Then we'll see how long McCain-Feingold holds up.

* Exploiting Max Cleland (McQ) - Max "Timmy!" Cleland....

Being from GA, I used to have a lot of respect for Max Cleland. He was the epitome of someone who'd shaken off the horrible effects of losing three limbs in Vietnam (for which, ironically, he did not get a Purple Heart ... no hostile fire) and and literally pulled himself back together, entered politics and was much beloved by the home folks.

Until he became a Senator. Then, it seems, Max got Potomac Fever. He became a staunch party man. He began to show an increasingly conservative state an increasingly liberal side. [...] But that was then and partisan Max is dealing in the now. Of course, it seems the exploitation of anyone to get Kerry into the White House, no matter how sad, shameless or distasteful it is, appears to be par for the DNC/Kerry Campaign course.

* AWOL for the Goose... (Jon Henke) - There appears to be every bit as much evidence that John Kerry was AWOL as there is evidence that George W Bush was AWOL.

Hm....so, while Kerry was contractually obligated, he had "other priorities" and got an exception that meant he "never showed up for [Reserve Duty] for a period of approximately one year".

Now, where have I heard that before?

* The Job Picture Gets Muddier (McQ and Dale Franks) - "Time to take a good hard look at the BLS payroll survey."

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that the establishment survey is more precise than the household survey, for a number of statistical and practical reasons. But, that only remains true as long as the composition of the workforce doesn't change radically. A shift from direct employment, to employment as a contractor or an LLC may not seem like self-employment to the worker, but that is, in fact what it is. So, if there has been a workforce shift towards contract work, the payroll survey, no matter how accurate it is methodologically, will still be wrong, simply because it can't record what it doesn't measure.

* More about Jobs (Dale Franks) - It's too early to tell if the tax cuts have increased revenue, but it's apparent that they did help to ameliorate the recession.

Even if one assumes that the payroll data from the establishment survey are absolutely correct, that still puts our current rate of employment of 5.5% at the same rate it was in July of 1996, which is hardly remembered as a time of great tribulation. Indeed, the unemployment rate never reached as low as 5.5% from 1974-1988, or from 1990-1994. So, it's a bit dumb to pretend that a 5.5% rate of unemployment is a crisis. Moreover, if in fact, the establishment survey is missing employment because it does not account for changes in the composition of the labor force, the actual unemployment rate is below—and judging by the household survey, significantly below—5.5%.

* The Laffer Curve (Dale Franks) - A discussion of the Laffer curve, as it relates to the Bush tax cuts. (with reader questions)

Well, here's the thing about the Laffer Curve. It posits, correctly, that higher rates of taxation hinder economic growth by killing incentives. But, and this is often missed, it also posits that, below the equilibrium point, the tax rate no longer impedes economic growth.

* Swifties Phase II addresses vets real anger (McQ) - "...the smearing and back stabbing took place in 1971 by a man named John Kerry. He's the one who broke faith with his military comrades and who stabbed them in the back while they were still in combat."

Most who were in Vietnam, as in any war, know that there were war crimes committed as well as atrocities. It happens in every war, and they're perpetrated by both sides. But what Kerry describes above, were he to be describing WWII, would be a very valid description of the Nazi army, but not the Allies. That's not to say that the Allies didn't commit the occasional war crime or atrocity. But unlike Nazi war crimes and atrocities such as their advance through Poland, atrocities and war crimes by the Allies were isolated incidents which were not "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command". That is also what happened in Vietnam.

And, that is the beef. That is the label which Vietnam veterans reject Mi Lai was an aberation, not a policy, just as we're now finding with Abu Ghrab. To pretend that Mi Lai was comparable to the Warsaw Ghetto is simply ludicrous, but that is what Kerry contends with those statements.

* The Highest uninsured rate since Herbert Hoover...er, Bill Clinton? (Jon Henke) - A look at the recent "uninsured" data, which isn't as bas as it sounds on the evening news....

This data will be making the Democratic talking points...

A stagnant economy and rising health care costs helped push the percentage of people in the USA without health insurance last year to 15.6% of the population...

The rest of that sentence will not....

...the highest since the share hit a peak of 16.3% in 1998.

Rest assured, you won't be hearing any "worst since..." comparisons on that point.

* Busting the McCain 2000 myth (McQ) - Bush attacked the service of Cleland and McCain! Except, beyond the strange syllogism that "Rove is evil, and attacking their service is evil....therefore, Rove was behind it. QED! " there doesn't seem to be much to that claim.

This is a crew that takes every single little thing said in criticism, no matter how true, to be an attack on their service or their patriotism. We've delt with the Cleland nonsense before, but how about McCain? Just as with Cleland, there's a myth which has grown up about McCain and Bush in South Carolina which has Bush questioning McCain's military credentials and patriotism.
[...]
McCain was rejected by SC voters not because of his service or his "lack" of patriotism, but because he was too liberal when they compared him to Bush. Max Cleland was rejected by GA voters for the same reason. However, to hear McCain whine about it, you'd think they cut the buttons off of his uniform, broke his sword and escorted him to the SC line.

* Curiouser and Curiouser (Dale Franks and Jon Henke) - Questions arise surrounding Kerry's records. Which may explain why he's not real big on releasing records.

Now, we shouldn't jump to conclusions here. Peoples' DD214s get screwed up all the time. My DD214 missed my AF Achievement Medal. Not a particularly impressive medal, but, still, I earned it, and my DD214 should show it. So, it may be that way with Kerry.
[...]
But, we'd probably know more about this whole deal if we could actually see Kerry's records, which, of course, we can't.

* 1st Blogiversary for QandO (Jon Henke) - It's our Birthday weekend!

And, without getting too maudlin, it cannot be overstated how much I appreciate and enjoy the people who have been reading, commenting, emailing and participating for so long.

At any rate, tomorrow marks the 1st Blogiversary of QandO. Expensive gifts Congratulatory links, blogrolling, bookmarking and word-of-mouth advertising are not discouraged.

Margin of Victory?

The Tallahassee Democrat carries the results of an interesting poll just taken in the state of FL.

A new survey of Democrats and Republicans shows how polarized the parties are in Florida and has some potentially troubling implications for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

The poll of 500 Democrats and 500 Republicans, released Friday by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., showed predictably partisan breakdowns on issues and unity behind Kerry and President Bush within their own parties.

But the poll found 11 percent of Democrats willing to vote for Bush on Nov. 2, compared to just 5 percent of Republicans who said they would cross over for Kerry.

And while only 18 percent of Democrats consider themselves conservative, more than one-third of conservative Democrats said they will vote for Bush.

If this same sort of dissaffection, no matter how small, holds true in other states, it could be the margin of victory for Bush.

As the poll notes:

Democrats in the survey backed Kerry by 82 percent. Bush had 87 percent support among his own party's likely primary voters.

Bush's approval rating also broke down along party lines - 85 percent approval among Republicans, 75 percent disapproval among Democrats - and party members were similarly split on the economy. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans said the economy is improving while 76 percent of Democrats said it's not.

Seventy-nine percent of likely Republican voters backed Bush on the Iraq war, 12 percent said it was a mistake to invade, and 83 percent felt the administration is making progress in fighting terrorism.

By contrast, 76 percent of Democrats felt invading Iraq was a mistake. Only 25 percent thought the war on terror is making gains while 59 percent said it isn't.

Interesting.

Libertarians for Bush

Well, it probably goes without saying that most libertarians have Big Problems with the Bush administration. Between the spending, trade restrictions, increased regulation, dramatically enlarged entitlement programs, and assorted other quibbles and bits, there's a whole lot to dislike.

On the other hand, I'm having trouble recalling any election in which libertarians didn't have Big Problems with the whole slate of realistic candidates.

And there is, after all, a War on.

So, primarily for that reason, some libertarians have thrown in their chips with Bush.

Bush is not a libertarian, nor do we claim he is. He is a Centrist with soft conservative leanings. In this election and upcoming term we believe he is the right man for the job.

There is also a Political Quiz at the site. I got:
Economic Issues: is 95
Social Issues: is 90
...probably because of a few "maybe's" I put in response to questions that I wasn't sure could be accurately answered with a Yes or No. At the end, there's an interesting map of projected rankings for other well-known political and social figures.

I'd be interested to know your scores, as well. Take the test, and visit the site.

Never again

Teresa Heinz Kerry has broken her silence of weeks to wade into the fray about her husband's VN service and war-protesting. Perhaps she shouldn't have:

"I believe that discussions or attacks on [my husband's] service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country," she told the Dayton Daily News.

"Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future," she added.

In a word, Ms. Heinz-Kerry: "Nonsense". If anyone, those fighting in Iraq know exactly what this is about, even if you don't.

What they know is the veterans of the Vietnam era, who were so maligned by your husband, are going to make sure of two things. A) He doesn't get a pass on if as he has for 30+ years and B) that the sorts of lies and exaggerations he told against our military will never again go unanswered or unconfronted. Not if the veterans have anything to say about it.

While this may be painful for you and your husband, try to imagine how painful it was for those who were branded wholesale as murderers, rapists and war-criminals by his false testimony. Imagine having to live silently with the lies your husband told about them for all these years.

Is this detrimental to the morale of the troops in Iraq? Hardly. What would be detrimental to their moral is to have to endure a Commander-in-chief who trashed the institution they hold dear and has worked incessently during his Senate career to cut their funding, weapons systems and size.

Asked Monday about the Swiftvet criticism by the Gannet News Service, Heinz Kerry responded less forcefully, saying, "I honor my husband's work. I honor his past."

"I may be wrong," she added. "But I have to believe that no veteran today, including those who don't plan to vote for my husband, feels very good about these attacks."

In this case you're precisely right. But its like surgery. We may not like it but its something which must be done. This has been a festering wound among veterans for 35 years. But there's never really been a forum to present the tide of resentment which has abided in Vietnam era vets that this particular man seeded with his testimony and activites in 1971.

Until now.

As you saw at the VFW Convention, what your husband did in 1971 has not been forgotten and it certainly hasn't been forgiven. You, like most of the left who were complicit in the lies and the resulting shabby treatment of members of our military at that time, would love to just pretend like it all never happend.

Well it did.

And your husband is in large part responsible for that. This is the first opportunity on a national scale for the veteran community to finally have its say about what he did. The time has come for John Kerry to face up to it and pay the piper.

Is it hurting morale in Iraq? Don't kid yourself. Its most likely building it up ... our troops know that, at least in the veteran community, we'll never let this happen again if we can help it.

UPDATE: Reader Peter distills the essense of the anger felt by Vietnam veterans toward John Kerry with a passionate and articulate rendering of his deepest feelings about what this has awakened and why its important to him and to others like myself:

I cannot speak to any effect that this controversy has on serving Military. I cannot even speak to any Viet Nam Veteran but myself.

This controversy has affected my morale, albiet not in the way Mrs. Heinz-Kerry seems to think. This controversy has made me ashamed of myself.

Make no mistake, my tours in Viet Nam were not the stuff of the glorious fiction of a John Wayne movie, my war had far more to do with lonlieness, homesickness, fear and exhaustion than it had to do with charging enemy pillboxes shooting a flame thrower from the hip. I was simply one of millions doing an ugly job in an ugly place.

I do not apologize for my mundane service, I went where I was sent and did what I was told, to the best of my ability. My shame comes from when I came home to the cacophony of the 'anti-war' movement.

For a little while I tried to defend myself and my comrades, when few would listen I gave up. In my weariness, my desire to fit in, my eagerness to build a civilian life and, yes, my cowardice, I shut up, put my head down and allowed the Haydens, Fondas and Kerrys to define me, and, worse, those who had done more and sacrificed more than me. I sat silent for three and a half decades while the children of men who died over there were taught the same thing that mine were, that the men who fought that war were a bunch of raping, murdering thugs of subhuman intelligence but enough cunning to master the incredibly complex machinery of then-modern war and unleash it, not in defense of freedom but in opposition to it.

As I sat with my family and told them of the absolute integrity, love and honor of so many of the young men I was privileged to stand alongside, the superhuman courage, born out of love, that I had the honor to see, a small voice in my soul was asking 'who is telling this to the children of the dead?' It wasn't me. It should have been me.

Now, after years of my silence, the man who, more than any other single man, put that black cloud over those 58,000 names carved in black granite, is back. Three and a half decades after pissing on every single one of those 58,000 neatly-folded flags he is wrapping himself in them.

I'm angry and ashamed. Angry at myself for allowing this. Angry at him for doing this.

I am not competant to judge the quality of Kerry's service in those boats. I was nowhere near them, my job was elsewhere. I simply don't know enough about the war on the rivers to have an opinion, I defer to those who served on the rivers.

I do know this. John Kerry surrounded himself with 'veterans', many of whom had never spent a day in uniform. Others had never been assigned to Southeast Asia. None of those 'veterans, not a single one, would testify under oath, to all of these 'widespread atrocities'. Even after being offered full immunity they would not testify.

This is what I know. John Kerry slimed the good name of every single one of the millions of good men I had the honor of standing beside. He did it on purpose, knowingly. He did it after running for office as a hero and losing. Discovering that heros weren't selling very well he turned to knavery. Had he spoken only for himself I could forgive him for his lies and myself for my silence.

I am silent no longer. Everywhere my voice is welcome and places where it isn't, I'm speaking out. I should have done this decades ago.

This isn't about George Bush. It's not about me. It's about scrubbing the slime off that black granite wall. It's about the pride and love being, thirty-odd years too late, restored to some 58,000 families.

Please forgive the length, somebody smarter than me could probably say this in a single sentence.

Thank you Peter. I don't think I could have said it better if I had tried.

Thank you for you service ... and welcome home.

Curiouser and Curiouser

Chicago Sun-Times political reporter Thomas Lipscomb has been looking over the military records on Jiohn Kerry's campaign web site. After doing so, he's wondering about something.

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

That's certainly odd. But that's not all. For a single medal, Kerry seems to have gotten more than the usual number of citations (1) to go with it.

Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ."

But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.

Actually, that's not just odd, it's bizarre. Usually, if you lose the citation or certificate, you just request a duplicate from the DoD. They don't get re-written for you.

But, wait, there's more!

Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."

Now, we shouldn't jump to conclusions here. Peoples' DD214s get screwed up all the time. My DD214 missed my AF Achievement Medal. Not a particularly impressive medal, but, still, I earned it, and my DD214 should show it. So, it may be that way with Kerry.

Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, "these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s."

But, we'd probably know more about this whole deal if we could actually see Kerry's records, which, of course, we cant.

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

So, what's in those hundred pages of documents? What kind of goodies might be unearthed? For instance, might we find out what happened with Kerrys discharge from the Navy?

Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

Nice to see the mainstream media finally jumping in and asking some questions.

UPDATE (JON): "Wow" is right. Reader "Jumbo" refers us to NRO's Kerry Spot, which has this....

Veterans said yesterday that although they would take offense at someone falsely wearing a "V" combat pin, they couldn't see how this could drive Navy Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda to suicide.

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Navy combat veteran who served in Vietnam.

One more question. If John Kerry believes this....

“In a sense, there's nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry said.

“If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”

And, more to the point, why did John Kerry say that Bush "owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have."....and, yet, John Kerry--principled man that he is--refuses to do more than a very limited, selective release of his own records? And why is the left side of the 'sphere so suddenly quiet about that whole "release the record" thing?

Of course, those are rhetorical questions.

The fact is, while each side blathers about "the principle of the thing", there's still an election to be won, and principles don't win the Electoral College. The shots fired are for advantage, not principle.

Busting the McCain 2000 myth

I like Rich Lowry's characterization of a trio of Vets we've come to know well here lately:

It is supposed to be a devastating critique of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that John McCain doesn't like their ads. But should we be surprised? McCain knows no party. Instead, together with Kerry supporter Max Cleland, the Arizona senator makes for the smallest caucus in American politics -- Thin-Skinned Vietnam War Veterans Adored by the Media (TSVWVAM).

This is a crew that takes every single little thing said in criticism, no matter how true, to be an attack on their service or their patriotism. We've delt with the Cleland nonsense before, but how about McCain? Just as with Cleland, there's a myth which has grown up about McCain and Bush in South Carolina which has Bush questioning McCain's military credentials and patriotism.

Lowry says, "not true". Consider the context and the situation:

A Kerry ad (now taken off the air) featured a clip from McCain at a 2000 debate in South Carolina excoriating Bush for abiding attacks on his service. It seems devastating, unless you know the context. McCain was furious -- a not-infrequent condition for the Arizona maverick -- that a Bush supporter who is a veteran had stood next to Bush at a rally and complained about McCain's Senate voting record. It wasn't an attack on McCain's service. But both members of TSVWVAM have the same inability to distinguish between criticisms of their records and themselves personally.

"He has always opposed all the legislation," the pro-Bush vet said, "be it Agent Orange or Gulf War health care, or frankly the POW/MIA issue." You don't have to subscribe to every particular of this litany to consider it firmly in-bounds. A McCain vote in 1999 against a Department of Veterans Affairs spending bill, for instance, angered some vets, as did his work to normalize relations with Vietnam. Veterans of Foreign Wars gave McCain a 75 percent favorable rating in 1998, respectable but lower than other senators who scored in the 80 percent to 100 percent range. In 1995, McCain scored a mere 27 percent. So it's not as though his legislative record was beyond reproach.

McCain was rejected by SC voters not because of his service or his "lack" of patriotism, but because he was too liberal when they compared him to Bush. Max Cleland was rejected by GA voters for the same reason. However, to hear McCain whine about it, you'd think they cut the buttons off of his uniform, broke his sword and escorted him to the SC line.

As Lowry points out:

McCain lost in South Carolina because he was too liberal for Republican primary voters and his campaign was considered too negative after he compared Bush's honesty to Bill Clinton's.

So as you can tell, it wasn't exactly all "sweetness and light" from McCain.

As an interesting aside, since we're talking about McCain, the Washington Post is reporting the following:

McCain said that he urged Kerry sometime ago not to talk about Vietnam during his campaign. "I did advise John. I said, 'Look, you shouldn't talk about Vietnam because everybody else will. Let everybody else do it.' His advisers figured that was probably not enough, that he had to emphasize that in his campaign. In my campaign, as you know, I didn't talk about it because I didn't need to."

McCain also said he drew a distinction between the first anti-Kerry ad by the veterans group, which focused on Kerry's Vietnam service, and a second ad now airing that criticizes Kerry for his leadership in the antiwar movement after he returned from Vietnam. McCain condemned the first ad but not the second.

Not condemning the second ad, huh?

Telling.

Laugh of the Day

John Kerry's characterization of the Swift Boat Vets attack on him:

"They have obviously decided that some people will believe anything, no matter how fictional or how far-fetched, if they just repeat it often enough. That's how they have run their administration, that's how they're running their campaign, and that's how they will run their convention," Kerry said.

Is he talking about himself or the Swifties? When it comes to "repeat it often enough" no one can hold a candle to Kerry's "... when I was in Vietnam" and all the now frayed and frazzled hero vignette's which have been repeated ad nauseum for 30 plus years.

Oh wait ... he's repeating the canard that the Swifties are run by the administration.

Well, you know, he may have a point, depending on how many times he intends to repeat that specious bit of nonsense.

Heh ... watching this guy work is making me consider the possibility he may be "irony impaired."

the Pressure Cooker Theory of Hydraulic Release

That's Charles Krauthammer's name for his theory about the relatively quick emergence of the left's virulent hate of George Bush. You see, it all began in Florida and ended with the Supreme Court. Despite mountains of evidence showing no matter how many times and ways the recount had been done the result would be the same, the left rejects the result. Anger boils:

The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida, were not permitted their natural discharge. Came 9/11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander-in-chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks, the President was untouchable.

The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neill and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

Stripped of his halo, Bush's ratings went down. The spell was broken. He was finally once again human and vulnerable. With immense relief, the critics let loose.

The result has been a virtual avalanche of fear and lothing. "Hate" has unhinged the left:

It is not often that a losing presidential candidate (Al Gore) compares the man who defeated him with Hitler and Stalin. It is not often that a senior party leader (Edward Kennedy) accuses a sitting President of starting a war ("cooked up in Texas") to gain political advantage for his reelection.

The loathing goes far beyond the politicians. Liberals as a body have gone quite around the twist. I count one all-star rock tour, three movies, four current theatrical productions and five best sellers (a full one-third of the New York Times list) variously devoted to ridiculing, denigrating, attacking and devaluing this President, this presidency and everyone who might, God knows why, support it.

In a word, it has become "toxic".

The subject of one prominent new novel is whether Bush should be assassinated. This is all quite unhinged.

What if Bush is reelected? If they lose to him again, Democrats will need more than just consolation. They'll need therapy.

Actually I think if they lose, they'll need more than therapy. I'm of the opinion we'll see a preview of what we can expect if they lose in the streets of NY during the RNC convention.

I mentioned in an article the other day when writing about irony of Kerry's antiwar past and the probability he'd almost be forced to prosecute a war in the face of a gathering anti-war movement. But there was a paragraph in the op/ed I cited which makes me uneasy.

The anti-war movement in this country today is precisely where it was in its earliest stages of Vietnam. This nation is about a year away from serious antiwar activity, especially if Bush wins re-election and the pent-up bitterness that now drives the national Democratic Party has no productive outlet.

I happen to agree with this assessment. Jim Wooten, who wrote the piece in which it is found, has articulated something I've been thinking about for some time. If they lose, considering the virulence of the hate being spewed by the left, what will be the outlet for that hate but an anti-war movement? How else, with the presidency out of play for four years and a probable hold by Repubicans in Congress, will they vent this almost nuclear-powered hate?

We'll see ... but I certainly don't think its going to be pretty.

Well "Duh"!

Another from the liberal side of the fence has a revelation on the order of a "blinding flash of the obvious". Joan Ryan of the SFGate tells us:

As a good San Franciscan, I swallowed my judgment as I watched the Muslim women move through the malls and restaurants like shadows of their husbands and sons and young daughters. If I have learned anything in two decades in the Bay Area, it is tolerance for the customs of other cultures and religions.

But one day at breakfast in our Dubai hotel, I came across a story in the English-language Gulf News that made me question the assumption that tolerance is always a good thing. Is it possible, I wondered, to so single-mindedly embrace the virtue of tolerance that we become de facto supporters of oppression?

You see making a judgement means having to determine whether something is good or bad. And that then requires the "thinker" to determine whether their culture is "better" or "worse" than the culture being judged.

Much to , er, judgmental. Its an article of faith among many liberals that intolerance is perhaps the greatest of secular sins. The "thinking" is all cultures are equal, and to judge one as superior to another is to be intolerant, and thus narrow minded, parochial and partisan. It is to miss out on the richness of cultural diversity and the lessons we can learn from others.

Well I would agree that there's much to be said for many cultures and I wouldn't doubt we can learn from other cultures as well, but does that mean I must consider a culture which holds its women in virtual slavery, to be equal to a culture that demands the same rights for its women as it does its men?

I suppose that depends on my view on freedom, women and a whole raft of other things doesn't it? But regardless of what my views might be, I'm going to judge, one way or the other, whether a culture's treatment of women is "good" or "bad" according to what standards? The standards of the culture which supports (and shaped) my views. What our lib friends tell us is that any "judgement" of another culture is wrong. In other words they ask us to abandon the views which have been shaped by our culture and to view other cultures in a value-neutral sort of way. To acccept other cultures as being "as good as" ours, even if we don't agree with the basic precepts or principles of that culture.

Well you know what, that's just not human nature.

Time to be forthright. I am and always have been intolerant of many things, and I plan on remaining that way. It is through intolerance and discrimination that I make many daily decisions concerning the conduct of my life.

So sue me.

And even worse, I suppose, I find some cultures to be far superior to others.

They're shrieking in Berkley!

For instance, I'm intolerant of a culture which will stone a woman to death for being unfaithful and write the guy's infidelity off as "guys will be guys and just can't help themselves". A culture which treats that sort of offense as an offense to be settled between the two people and provides for them to do so legally is far superior.

I'm intolerant of a culture which finds male children superior to female children. I find far superior the culture that views both male and female children as equal gifts and treats them as such.

I'm intolerant of cultures which place their women in such a subserviant and degraded place that they're virtual slaves. I find far superior the culture which sees males and females as equals both in the law and through rights.

I'm intolerant of a culture which classifies and treats other human beings as inferior simply because of their race, sex or religion. The superior culture would treat all people, regardless of race, sex or religion as equals.

Those are just a few. And, somehow I figured all of this out all by myself years ago.

For Joan Ryan, the apparent revelation and conversion came late in life and was made on a very recent trip to the UAE where an honest to goodness "different culture" stared her right in the face. She apparently had a rough time applying the value-neutral "tolerance" template to what she saw and learned.

We cannot force another country to change its values and customs so they better reflect our own. But we don't have to accept them, either. Some customs and values are not worthy of our tolerance.

Welcome to the real world, Joan. Maybe we ought to make the UAE a "must go" destination on the liberal travelogue in the future.

The Abu Ghraib Report

Former career soldier Ralph Peters takes a critical look at the report on the Abu Ghraib Abuses. He's not happy. He's especially unhappy with the senior leadership at the pentagon, who shouldn't've have created the situation that led to it.

he problem isn't that we did the wrong thing. We did a great thing by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. But we did it needlessly badly. Because we tried to do it on the cheap. Well, the truth is that you don't always get what you pay for — but you never get what you don't pay for.

Why was our military prevented from conducting its standard, detailed planning processes? Why were troop levels held artificially low?

Because ideologues in the Bush administration feared that, if the American people were given honest answers about the potential cost, it might be politically impossible to go to war...

The administration clutched at the straw that the Schlesinger report didn't call for Rumsfeld's resignation (the Army's internal report could not have done so). Cold comfort: The report damned his performance. Besides, the Schlesinger team was drawn from the Washington old-boys' club, of which Rummy is a long-term member. The old boys never call for each other's resignation. It's remarkable they were as critical as they were.

The fact that the same bloodstained civilian leadership remains in place in the Pentagon is an insult to our troops — and a prime cause of our occupation stumbles.

Keep in mind, that Peters is a bush supporter.

I could write a book on everything the Bush administration has done wrong in Iraq. If there was any possible mistake the Bush Administration could make in being too tentative, or too risk averse, they made it. For example, ladies and gentlemen, I give you Moqtada al-Sadr. If I had been president, al-Sadr would've been dead or in prison a year ago.

And, while we're on the subject, Fallujah would be nothing but a very wide, flat place on the highway out of Baghdad, because, as soon as the trouble started there, I'd've evactuated it, razed it to the ground, leveled the rubble, and sowed the earth with salt.

And I'd've had enough troops in Iraq to do it, even if I'd had to empty out Germany to do so.

But, where were we? Oh. Yes. Abu Ghraib. Nasty business that. But apparently, though the senior leadership committed enough sins of omission to fill a book, they can't bear the blame for Abu Ghraib directly. That lies on the heads of the perpetrators. That doesn't mean the penatgon's leadership should be held blameless, though.

Whatever the sins of omission and commission at the top of the chain of command, the thugs in uniform at Abu Ghraib were self-starting criminals. Which is why they're pleading guilty, one after the other. No sympathy for those devils...

The reports also found officers in the Abu Ghraib chain of command derelict in the performance of their duties. They need to be court-martialed.

The easiest link in the chain of command to sympathize with is Lt.-Gen. Rick Sanchez and his staff in Baghdad. They had a growing insurgency to fight with too few troops, too small a staff, too few resources and indecision in Washington. It's easy to grasp why Sanchez and his deputies concentrated on the combat situation and slighted other matters. As a former soldier, I can easily imagine a sweating general snapping, "Look, I'm busy fighting a war, colonel. Just handle that prisoner business, all right?"

In the military, it's always the issue for which you don't have time that bites you on the backside.

And sometimes they take a big bite.

"I miscalculated...."

Kudos to George Bush for standing up and admitting that he "miscalculated what the conditions would be" in Iraq after the US invaded.

Of course that doesn't solve the problem or change the current situation in Iraq, but it does prove, at least to me, that Bush isn't above admitting an error or miscalculation. That admission does make it easier to now consider a course change and do what is necessary in Iraq to correct the effect of that miscalculation with an eye to remedying the situation.

We've all seen politicians who refuse to acknowledge error, apparently believing that doing so somehow damages them politically. Well folks when its obvious to the entire world but they won't admit it, how does it help their cause?

This is an important admission, because now alternatives and remedies can be openly discussed without further fear of the politics getting in the way.

Oh sure, the Dems are going to use this .... they'd be fools not too ... but I think this show of honesty will resonate more positively with the American people than negatively (well at least with the undecided). Yes it shows Bush to be fallible, but then I'd love to hear from someone who has always believed our elected officials to be infallible. I'm not sure of anyone who's ever believed him or any other president to be something other than a human being who may make mistakes.

More important than that is the man or woman who's willing to review his or her actions, admit their mistakes and not ride them over the canyon wall so they don't have to say "I was wrong".

Its that type person I prefer in a leadership positions.

Why not kiss and Make Up?

Daniel Henninger asks a question I've been wondering about for a while now.

How can this be happening? Why didn't John Kerry months back--if not years--find some gracious way to make peace with the John O'Neills of the world? Why didn't one wise head among the Democrats point out the obvious difficulties of the Kerry candidacy once past the party's primary voters? This is a man who would be running as both a hero of Vietnam and a famous accuser of the war's heroes. This is an election, not a Shakespearean tragedy. How come John Kerry never worked out, before the final leg of his long odyssey, a let-bygones statement, admitting the hyperbole (at the least) of his accusations of atrocity before Congress in 1971, honoring the service of colleagues who never felt obliged to apologize for Vietnam, but reserving his right to oppose that troubled war?

That's actually a pretty good question. It would seem like the smart thing to do would be to come to some sort of reconciliation with his fellow Viet vets; some sort of "mistakes were made" kind of deal. I mean, he wouldn't've had to go the whole mea maxima culpa route, just some sort of accomodation that took some of the edge off.

Henninger, however, thinks he knows why that never happened.

Alongside support for the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, opposition to Vietnam forms the moral bedrock of the modern Democratic Party. John Kerry (whose fidelity to principle, on the available evidence, is weaker than that of those who voted him into this role) is obliged to stand by his 1971 testimony as a matter of principle. Abandon that, and the party abandons him.

Henninger goes on to take this analysis a bit farther--perhaps too far--but this is compelling enough.

One of the things that the Left never did, except for a very few people like Joan Baez, was to admit that they were completely duped by the whole commie line of BS about being champiopns of democracy, and the VC being an indigenous movement that was all about self-determination for the people of South Vietnam.

That was all a sham, and once the VC had served their purpose, the North Vietnamese government gutted them, disbanded the VC, and bumped off any troublesome VC leaders who weren't completely willing to knuckle under.

And of course, the aftermath: a hundred thousand Vietnamese dying in "reeducation" camps, hundreds of thousands of "boat people", many of whom dies trying to leave the new workers' and peasants' paradise, the murder of 1/4 of Cambodia's population under the Khmer Rouge, the whole sad, sorry detritus of defeat.

The response of the Left was denial. It wasn't really happening, and besides, we caused it with our unjust war over there, and anyway, we still don't have social justice at home, and please, please, please, whatever you do, don't try to tell me that I was wrong, and that my opposition to the war in Vietnam led, in some small way to the murders of millions upon millions of people at the hands of my heroes.

They didn't want to hear it then, and they don't want to hear it now. It has become an article of faith that nothing was accomplished in Vietnam, nothing could've been accomplished, and so nothing that happened after our departure could possibly be their fault.

And they certainly don't want to be told they were wrong by their own presidential candidate. So Kerry is in an odd position. He is running as a valiant hero for fighting in a war he is mainly known for opposing. But to reconcile those two positions by admitting that his past statements were...factually incorrect, well, that simply isn't in the cards.

At least, not until he gets a lot more desperate than he is now.

Wow!

I've got to tell you, I find this both amazing and fascinating:

A German who had his lower jaw cut out because of cancer has enjoyed his first meal in nine years — a bratwurst sandwich — after surgeons grew a new jaw bone in his back muscle and transplanted it to his mouth in what experts call an "ambitious" experiment.

According to this week's issue of The Lancet medical journal, the German doctors used a mesh cage, a growth chemical and the patient's own bone marrow, containing stem cells, to create a new jaw bone that fit exactly into the gap left by the cancer surgery.

Tests have not been done yet to verify whether the bone was created by the blank-slate stem cells and it is too early to tell whether the jaw will function normally in the long term. But the operation is the first published report of a whole bone being engineered and incubated inside a patient's body and transplanted.

This is really an amazing story and development. But apparently not that new of a thing:

Paul Brown, head of the Center for Tissue Regeneration Science at University College in London, said it's not clear any major scientific ground has been broken, and tests may not be able to show whether the new bone came from stem cells, rather than from the growth factor alone.

The operation put established techniques together, resembling a well-known experiment in which University of Massachusetts scientists grew a human ear using a mold on the back of a mouse in 1995, he said.

They're going to try to make that determination at a later date. In the meantime the patient is eating steak and complaining he can't chew it well because he has no teeth so he has to cut it into tiny, tiny pieces.. On the agenda for later is the implantation of teeth so he can chew and enjoy large freaking chunks of charred cow.

Maybe his friends ought to learn the Heimlich maneuver now.

Clips from "Stolen Honor"

There is a film currently in production called "Stolen Honor" which bills itself as "a documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal". Obviously it has an agenda. But there is a portion of the web site which has some sample clips of interviews with Former POW's which I found to be very powerful and very damning.

The three who speak in these 3 to 4 minute clips are Ralph Gaither (7 years as a POW), Robinson Risner (7 years as a POW) and James Warner (6+ years as a POW). Pay particular attention to the Warner clip as he directly ties Kerry into the North Vietnamese using anti war activities against the POWs. Gaither is also compelling. He is of the opinion that had the war ended 6 months earlier, one of his fellow POWs (who died 6 months prior to the war's end) would have survived, but because of the anti-war movement extending the war, he didn't.

As mentioned below when I talked about phase two, this is part where the real anger with Kerry is found. As I've pointed out before, this isn't about duty, its about honor. And it appears "Stolen Honor" is going to address that point rather vividly if these clips are any indication.

Schachte speaks

Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr claimed that he "definitely" was in the "skimmer" (Boston whaler) with Kerry on the night he wounded himself with an M79 grenade.

In an exclusive interview with Robert Novak he says:

"I was absolutely in the skimmer" in the early morning on Dec. 2, 1968, when Lt. (j.g.) John Kerry was involved in an incident which led to his first Purple Heart.

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher)," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart."

He also said it was he, Kerry and an enlisted sailor, but he doesn't remember that sailor's name.

This obviously contradicts the claims by Bill Zaldonis and Patrick Runyon who both claim to have been on the skimmer that night with Kerry. They related their rememberances to the Boston Globe thusly (from Chap 3, "Unfit for Command")

The two men serving alongside Kerry that night had similar memories of the incident that led to Kerry's first wartime injury. William Zaldonis, who was manning an M-60, and Patrick Runyon, operating the engine, said they spotted some people running from a sampan to a nearby shoreline. When they refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry's crew began shooting. ''When John told me to open up, I opened up,'' Zaldonis recalled. Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit. ''I assume they fired back,'' Zaldonis said. ''If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it-what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell.''

Runyon, too, said that he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel. ''When you have a lot of shooting going on, a lot of noise, you are scared, the adrenaline is up,'' Runyon said. ''I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.''

So somebody (or maybe all of them) has it wrong. But note they do agree on one thing ... both Zaldonis and Runyon cannot, in anyway, verify return fire.

Back to Schachte:

Schachte, who also was then a lieutenant junior grade, said he was in command of the small Boston whaler or skimmer, with Kerry aboard in his first combat mission in the Vietnam War. The third crew member was an enlisted man whose name Schachte did not remember.

Two reasons why Schachte's story has some credibility. One is you'd rarely if ever, send a green officer out alone on his first combat mission.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and "I don't think he (Kerry) was alone" on his first assignment.

But that's not the only reason to believe Schachte's account:

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of Mekong River so that the larger Swift boats could move in.

[...]

Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis are the two enlisted men who said they were aboard the skimmer and did not know Schachte. However, two other former officers interviewed Thursday confirmed that Schachte was the originator of the technique and always was aboard the Boston whaler for these missions.

In other words, all skimmer missions were all Schachte's missions. It was his technique and it was only used, per Schachte, when he was aboard the skimmer. The Swift boat which was in support and which had towed the skimmer in was commanded by Lt. Voss.

So who's zoomin' who here? And why? We've already seen Alston's "memories" of Kerry's Silver Star event to have been false, as well as Alston's attribution of the actions of Ted Peck to Kerry. Is this just another in a long line of mistaken rememberances?

If we assume Schachte was always on the skimmer a number of possiblities ensue.

A) One of the two enlisted sailors wasn't on the skimmer.
B) Both were on the skimmer, but for some reason neither remembers Schachte
C) Shachte's rememberance of the number of sailors on the skimmer is faulty

Kerry has always supported the one officer (Kerry), two enlisted version in his rememberances as have, obviously, the two saliors, Zaldonis and Runyon. Schachte supports three in the boat, but with one of them being him.

Ted Peck, another Swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill (Schachte) telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte.

So who's right? Is it possible that Runyon or Zaldonis have perhaps mixed up a different skimmer mission with this one? If so, and if Schachte was on everyone of them, wouldn't one of them remember Schachte? Wouldn't Kerry?

Lots of interesting questions.

But let's remember one thing while contemplating the questions. According to Kerry, he went on exactly one of these missions not long after he first reached VN. This is how Schachte describes Kerry wounding himself that night:

At about 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

The M-79 does indeed have a distinctive "thunk" when it fires. Absolutely no mistaking it (like you can't mistake the fire of an AK-47 for an M-16). But more importantly, note the code name of the skimmer. Then consider this conversation related by Schachte:

The next time he saw Kerry after the first Purple Heart incident, Schachte said, was "about 20 years" later on the U.S. Senate subway in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building. "I called, 'Hey, John.' He replied, 'Batman.' I was absolutely amazed by his memory." He said they "talked about having lunch" but never did.

What does that say to you? What it says to me is Kerry identified Schachte with the skimmer mission. There is no other reason to refer to him as "Batman" otherwise.

It says to me that in all likelyhood, William Schachte was indeed on that skimmer the night of the incident. Note I'm not then suggesting that Zaldonis or Runyon weren't. Its entirely possible they were and Schachte's memory is faulty in that regard. Its entirely possible that all three have forgotten the other was on there.

But, based on the Kerry reaction to Schachte 20 years later and the fact that the skimmer missions were all Schachte's and he was on every one of them, I have to come down on the side of the Schachte version here. If it was his technique, he'd be the responsible party for employing it. Regardless of who was in the boat, all of them either remember there was "no fire" or don't know if there was any fire, and that puts the Purple Heart awarded for that incident in deep doubt.

The Highest uninsured rate since Herbert Hoover...er, Bill Clinton?

This data will be making the Democratic talking points...

A stagnant economy and rising health care costs helped push the percentage of people in the USA without health insurance last year to 15.6% of the population...

...the highest since the share hit a peak of 16.3% in 1998.

As we've noted here often, our health care system is terribly mangled, and a change is absolutely warranted. Of course, when we say "a change", we don't mean "more government".

For future reference, though, the Census Bureau lists these stats...[formatted differently for your viewing pleasure]

Covered by private or government health insurance

2003.......83.2
2002.......83.3
2001.......84.2
2000 9/...84.8
1999 8/...84.4
1999.......83.5
1998.......82.7
1997 7/...82.4
1996.......82.9
1995.......83.2
1994 6/...83.4
1993 5/...82.9

Covered by private or government health insurance

2003.......67.3

Now, one can argue whether the number of insured people should be legislated higher--i.e., "government provides health insurance"--or whether the government should stay out of it and allow people to make their own choices.

We could argue all of that, discuss Canada, per-capita health care spending, a priori economic assumptions on efficient allocation of resources, and the number of MRI machines in Tennessee.

We could discuss all of that, and and I think we probably will over the course of the next few years. Socialized medicine is coming and, as Dan Patrick might say, we can't stop it...we can only hope to contain it.

UPDATE: Via INDC Journal, I see Prudent Politics has taken on the poverty aspect of the report.

The first thing that stands out to me when looking at this graph is that the years with the lowest number of poor were in the booming years of the 1970's.

I also noticed that a poverty rate of 12.5 percent is still one of the lowest poverty rates since 1959. Any idea why AP didn't report this?

Why do you think we're rock stars?!

Heh ... Alice Cooper weighs in on Rock Stars going political:

"When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I'd run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we're morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal."

Ground truth.

[via Dispatches from the Outland]

Swifties Phase II addresses vets real anger

Jeff Jacoby points out that while all the bruhaha about Kerry's combat record has distracted Kerry, put him off message and caused there to be doubt about his version of events in Vietnam, its not that about which the Swifties are really angry:

That doesn't mean their version of the facts is closer to the truth than his. There are conflicting eyewitness recollections, and, as The Washington Post says, "both accounts contain significant flaws and factual errors." Kerry certainly wouldn't be the first soldier to have embellished his war stories; the Swift Boat vets wouldn't be the first whose passions have altered their memories. Of course, if Kerry really wants to silence the debate about his medals, he can authorize the government to release all his military records. But that won't silence the Swifties. Because their real beef with him is not about what he did in Vietnam. It's about what he did when he came home.

Certainly its been hinted at enough, but now, the full effect and effort of pointing out his perfidy when he returned from Vietnam is their aim.

On April 22, 1971, Kerry went before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to indict the American war effort in Vietnam for horrendous war crimes. These were "not isolated incidents," he testified, "but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Most who were in Vietnam, as in any war, know that there were war crimes committed as well as atrocities. It happens in every war, and they're perpetrated by both sides. But what Kerry describes above, were he to be describing WWII, would be a very valid description of the Nazi army, but not the Allies. That's not to say that the Allies didn't commit the occasional war crime or atrocity. But unlike Nazi war crimes and atrocities such as their advance through Poland, atrocities and war crimes by the Allies were isolated incidents which were not "committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command". That is also what happened in Vietnam.

And, that is the beef. That is the label which Vietnam veterans reject Mi Lai was an aberation, not a policy, just as we're now finding with Abu Ghrab. To pretend that Mi Lai was comparable to the Warsaw Ghetto is simply ludicrous, but that is what Kerry contends with those statements.

BG Burkett, in his book "Stolen Valor", quotes findings by historian Guenter Lewy in his book "America in Vietnam" which address the issue:

Lewy pointed out that incidents similar to those described at the Winter Soldier hearings did occur. "Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations," Lewy wrote. Those responsible were tired and punished.

"In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a 'criminal policy,'" Lewy said. Despite the antiwar movement's contention that military policies protecting civilians in Vietnam were routinely ignored, Lewy said the rules of engagement were implemented and taken very seriously, although at times the rules were not communicated properly and the training was inadequate. That's what made the failure so notable.

But that is not what Kerry said. Instead Kerry willingly (whether knowingly or unknowingly) perpetrated a fraud which has since branded an entire generation of soldiers with the false impression he generated about the war in Vietnam.

What Lewy found is what most who were in Vietnam remember. But in 1971, no one was interested in listening to soldiers who disagreed with the anti-war side's version. No one was interested in the other side of the argument. So for 35 years, the false impression John Kerry is responsible for perpetrating in both the fradulent "Winter Soldier Investigations" and his 1971 Senate testimony has laid there like a cold lump in need of excising. Now with a war on, now with an understanding of the things which can happen in war, now with support for the military at an all time high, the maligned vets of the Vietnam era see their chance to finally tell their side of the story ... and it won't be kind to John Kerry.

That is what thousands of Vietnam veterans, not to mention countless other vets, have never forgiven or forgotten. Bob Dole, whose right arm was crippled in World War II, suggested on Sunday that Kerry apologize to the 2.5 million veterans he defamed. Kerry's words -- which drew immense media coverage at the time -- helped poison public attitudes about Vietnam veterans and the cause they had fought in. Even worse, they gave encouragement to the enemy.

Kerry has refused to acknowledge his responsibility in this, trying to wave it off as youthful indescretion. But that's not how the majority of vets of that era see it. They instead see a calculated campaign to impugn their honor and what they were doing. They remember the aura of disgust and revulsion those like Kerry helped generate against the military based on that false testimony. They haven't forgotten.

We see comments here at Q and O by some of those backing Kerry that by questioning his combat record or any other record we're smearing him or stabbing him in the back.

Well as far as I'm concerned, and I'm only speaking for myself, the smearing and back stabbing took place in 1971 by a man named John Kerry. He's the one who broke faith with his military comrades and who stabbed them in the back while they were still in combat. They've neither forgiven nor forgotten what he inferred about all of them. So I don't begrudge the Swifties at all in taking advantage of this opportunity to set the record straight and repair the honor of the military of that era that Kerry so badly impugned.

As their Phase II rolls out, remember that while there are certainly questions on both sides about Kerry's Vietnam record, the real anger comes from what he did afterward.

Kerry has never taken back his terrible slur against his fellow soldiers -- men he now calls his "band of brothers." The most he has been willing to say is that his words "were a little bit over the top" and that he could perhaps "have phrased things more artfully." He certainly doesn't regret the propaganda coup he handed the Viet Cong: "I'm proud that I stood up," Kerry told NBC in April. "I don't want anybody to think twice about it."

As I've pointed out before, eveyone has a right to dissent. But when you dissent, you have an obligation to do so responsibly. Responsible dissent doesn't include spreading falsehoods, lies and outright fabrications in order to build or boslter your case. That is what Kerry did. So while he declares no real remorse for what he did, I can find no reason to fogive him for it and I certainly haven't forgotten about it. He abrogated his responsiblity to dissent responsibly and I have no problem with now confronting him with his record on that account.

The second phase of the Swift boat vet's ads addresses the core of the anger an era of soldiers, saliors, airmen and marines hold against Kerry. If he handles this phase as badly as he has handled the questioning of his Vietnam duty, he may have the DNC researching whether they can pull a "Torecelli" nationally and elevate John Edwards to the top spot.

Quick Hits

* I am not above appeals to my ego--"in the same way that the sea is not above the clouds"--so this is getting TrueBlueGal some attention....

... QandO (I swear, I'm gonna cheerlead for these fellas)...

Completely aside from the clever flattery, she's got some good posts, too. Check this one out, in particular.

__________________________

* Via Dean Esmay, here's some potentially good energy news...

A team of Australian scientists predicts that a revolutionary new way to harness the power of the sun to extract clean and almost unlimited energy supplies from water will be a reality within seven years.

Using special titanium oxide ceramics that harvest sunlight and split water to produce hydrogen fuel, the researchers say it will then be a simple engineering exercise to make an energy-harvesting device with no moving parts and emitting no greenhouse gases or pollutants.

It would be the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant energy source ever developed: the main by-products would be oxygen and water. Rooftop panels placed on 1.6 million houses, for example, could supply Australia's entire energy needs.

In May, Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) said its first commercial plant is selling oil -- equivalent to crude oil No. 4 -- produced from agricultural waste products. The plant currently produces 100 to 200 barrels of oil per day using byproducts from an adjacent turkey processing facility.
[...]
At peak capacity, estimated to occur by the end of this year, the first plant will produce 500 barrels of oil per day, as well as natural gas, liquid and solid fertilizer and solid carbon.

Regardless, it's exactly something like this that I believe will render our current environmental and economic energy-related fears an anachronism of another age. With the advancing pace of technology, I fully expect we'll see some serious progress within a couple decades, and implementation within a decade or two after that.

With these advances in technology, the Kyoto Treaty will eventually look a bit like a fellow trying to sell horse carriages right about the time the Model T was being produced.

_____________________________

* Ah, Bob Herbert. Today, he asks "where is the shame", and asks President Bush--who is not allowed to coordinate with 527 groups--to "call off his dogs".

Naturally, he doesn't seem to have any problem with criticizing National Guard service...but then, the National Guard seems to be a "free fire zone" these days. At least he doesn't repeat the myth that Bush leapt ahead "of 500 other applicants who were on a waiting list" as he has done before.

Most obviously, though, Herbert is just missing the point when he calls this "trash[ing] their service for political gain". Let's get this very clear. Right or wrong, the questions surrounding Kerry right now are about his STORY, not his service.

______________________________

* Priceless. Just priceless.

_____________________________

* Recently added "Winning Argument" to our blogroll. It's an interesting liberal blog, with each post addressing a particular issue with a "why you're right/why they're wrong" pattern. They seem to encourage reasonable, factual debate. I like that in a blog.

Needless to say, though, I disagree with their conclusions, especially in posts like this, where they pass on the misleading story that "Bush proposed rolling back increases for imminent-danger pay". In fact, the proposal was simply an attempt to restructure the pay, with no attempt to reduce the overall level of pay received by the soldiers.

Seems like a good place for reasonable debate, though.

UPDATE: And since I mentioned reasonable debate, it's worth taking on this point at Winning Argument.

Bush should stop using the Olympics in political advertisements.
[...]
The ads are inaccurate. The advertisement implies that Iraq was able send athletes to the Summer Olympics because the United States invaded Iraq. The ads say "today, because the world acted with courage and moral clarity...[Iraqi] athletes are competing in the Olympic Games." But Iraq was represented in the 2000 Sydney Games.

That line came from a radio address Bush gave ~2 weeks ago, and their ellipses left out the phrase "those nations are free"...which seems an important component of the statement.

The actual phrase use in the ad: "this Olympics there will be two more free nations". That's a far cry from claiming the nations are only competing because of the wars.

On the legal issue, I'm unpersuaded by their argument, but only because I haven't heard the opposing argument. However, I do agree with WA that the ad should be pulled on general principle.

______________________________

* The NYTimes writes...

President Bush said on Thursday that he did not believe Senator John Kerry lied about his war record, but he declined to condemn the television commercial paid for by a veterans group alleging that Mr. Kerry came by his war medals dishonestly.

But they won't wait.

The Laffer Curve

Roger Snowden objects to my characterization of the Laffer Curve below, arguing:

The Laffer Curve is valid, I believe, but must be placed in the context of time. And lots of questions remain, such is the actual growth effect of tax policy, lag times, the effects of changing levels of government spending, etc. The inevitable "all other things being equal" that does not actually happen in reality.

Well, here's the thing about the Laffer Curve. It posits, correctly, that higher rates of taxation hinder economic growth by killing incentives. But, and this is often missed, it also posits that, below the equilibrium point, the tax rate no longer impedes economic growth.

Snowdon appears to be interpreting that as meaning that lower taxes keep incentivizing economic growth, so the lower the tax rate, the greater the rate of economic growth. But that isn't the correct interpretation.

Once taxes have reached the equilibrium point, lower taxes don't encourage even greater economic growth. Once you've reached the equilibrium point, you're already at the optimum level of growth. Cutting taxes beyond that point begins to reduce revenues, because the lower tax rates no longer produce increased economic growth.

Essentially, the Laffer Curve posits that, below the EP, people are already maximizing their economic production, because they are, after all, willing to pay some taxes. It keeps the cops on the beat, and the courts open, and the roads relatively pothole free. It is only after you move to the right of the EP that economic activity begins to become constrained. Moving to the left of the EP no longer increases economic growth, it merely reduces revenue, and that's true over time, as well.

Once people are already maximizing their production, lower tax rates can't make them super-maximize.

UPDATE:

Reader Frank Castle asks:

I thought equilibium point is where govt revenue is maximized, not economic growth. Are you saying that both are maximized at equilibrium, or am I in error?

I am saying something close to that, but not exactly that. At the EP and below, economic decisions are not made with much reference to taxation. So, as long as tax rates are acceptably low, i.e., at the equilibrium point or the left of it, people make economic decisions on other factors.

Once taxes reach the equilibrium point, or move to the right of it, taxes begin to distort economic decisions because they provide disincentives. In other words, the main power of tax rates is to hinder economic activity. Once tax rates are low enough, the disincentive they provide is removed.

Now, it might very well be that very low taxes might help economic growth to some small extent, simply because more money is freed up for, say savings or investment. But in all probability, the increases in economic activity aren't enough to overcome the lost revenues.

So, you are technically correct to say the EP is the point at which revenues are maximized. But the reason revenues are maximized is because the revenue losses from tax rates at the left of the EP are greater than the marginal increases in economic activity that might be provided by the extra money in people's pockets.

It is important to remember that there are other reasons why economic growth can't increase too much. There are, for instance, physical limits on the amount of work one can do in a single day. Lowering tax rates doesn't change those physical limits.

Raising tax rates above the EP might make a person decline to work more than eight hours a day, because the benefits of doing so are hindered by high tax rates. But, if a person is willing to work 10 hours a day at the EP, he won't necessarily be willing, or even able, to work 12 or 14 hours a day if tax rates are cut even more. His output is already maximized.

That's why the true power of tax rates is to hinder economic growth, not to boost it.

UPDATE II:

Reader Oscar asks:

I wonder why it has not been generally recognised that below some cut-off point, however defined, the effect stop. Do economists not study mathematics?

But, it has been defined. The Laffer Curve is just the graphic representation of that definition. That's precisely why the curve shows tax revenues dropping on the left side of the EP.

The trouble is not that economists don't study math. The problem is that the Equilibrium Point can't be quantified. It changes over time, and in response to political or economic conditions. Indeed, the definition of the EP is remarkably imprecise: The rate at which the population consents to be taxed.

During a war, for example, the rate may be quite high, as people are more willing to sacrifice in a time of national emergency. But when peacetime comes, people no longer are as willing to do so.

I have long posited that we saw an example of this during the first term of President Clinton, when he raised the top rate to 36%.

During the previous several years, there was increasing concern about the deficit. Supply-Siders were aghast, though, at the thought of raising taxes. At the time, I spoke every week to former Reagan Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts on my radio show in LA. Craig was adamant that raising tax rates would slow te economy, then just coming out of recession, and would reduce tax revenues.

In fact, quite the opposite occured. The economy boomed and tax revenues rose quite sharply. More sharply, in fact, than during Reagan's term. I think the Supply-Siders were quite wrong because public fear about the deficit made people more willing to pay higher taxes in order to reduce the deficit. The EP had moved to the right, and Clinton's tax increases produced more revenues because they moved tax rates closer to the EP.

UPDATE III:

Co-blogger Jon ponders:

So, while an effective tax cut from 40% to 36% might create an additional, say, 1% GDP growth, that GDP growth would not offset the 10% reduction in effective tax percentage. Meaning, the revenue would still go down, though not quite by the full 10%.

But, as Snowden indicated, the cumulative effect over that extra 1% GDP growth would add up. Over the course of 10 years, that's quite a large increase in potential GDP, and that eventual increase in GDP would offset the lost revenue...though, it would not occur in any single year.

Well, that's true, but not very relevant. as long as there is any economic growth at all, eventually revenues will increase beyond the level they were before taxes were cut.

But that wasn't the argument the Supply-Siders were making in the late 1970s. Their argument was that cutting rates would result in an immediate increase in revenues, because tax rates were, at the time, so far to the right of the EP, with the top rate at 70%.

Sure, if you don't mind deficits for a decade, you can cut taxes 10% at any time, even if you're already on the left of the EP. If you don't mind deficits for a century, you can cut taxes by 99%, and 100 years from now, the money will be rolling in!

Once you start making the "Well, in the long run, revenues will increase" argument, you're moving the goalposts. As long as the economy keeps growing, then at some point, revenues will increase beyond where they are when you change the tax code, no matter what you do. In the long run, then, it doesn't matter if you raise taxes, lower them, or do nothing, as long as there is any economic growth at all.

Of coure, as Keynes wrote, in the long run, we're all dead.

UPDATE IV:

Reader el Seco is full of questions:

You are saying that we are presently very close to the maximum amount of revenue we can expect given how much we are willing to be taxed. Is that about right? Thus, our situation with revenue has little to do with the unemployment rate or Bush's tax cuts. Is that about right?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The main reasons for our current revenue problems have been the massive increases in government soending over the past 4 years, the revenue-lowering effects of recession, and the implosion of the equities market that began in the spring of 2000.

There are, after all, a lot of things that affect revenues besides tax rates.

Last question: Did Bush promise that the tax cuts would increase revenue or did he promise that they would stimulate the economy?

Now that I think about it, I never remeber Bush explicitly making the revenue enhancement argument. He argued that his tax cuts would encourage economic growth, which is an indirect revenue enhancement argument, but he also argued that the 2003 tax cuts were an important stimulus tool.

I think both arguments were wrong. If we were already at the EP, then further cuts wouldn't encourage more growth to the extent that the revenues losses would be neutralized. And the tax cuts themselves weren't particularly stimulative. I know of no reputable economist who agreed with the stimulus argument at all.

No matter how good the moral arguments were and are for the 2003 tax cuts (i.e., the government has no right to be a majority shareholder in my income), the economic arguments for them were a bit weak, from both the stimulus and revenue point of view.

That's also not to say that all the economic arguments were bad. Ending taxation on dividends is quite a good idea, although I'm not sure I want to get into that whole argument now. But the basis on which Bush pushed them, the arguments were deficient. There were several good arguments for tax cuts, they just weren't the arguments that Bush made.

More about Jobs

In reference to the jobs picture we talked about below, reader MK-Ultra writes:

If employment is in fact higher than the payroll numbers indicate, then the question becomes why are we operating in record deficit territory?

When employment numbers were high in the 90's, we had a surplus. Bush hasn't cut the size of government, but he hasn't created any new major programs either. And yes, government spending outpaces inflation. But not on a level that would account for the current deficit.

Only two explanations present themselves: Revenue is down because there simply aren't that many people working. Or Bush's tax cuts are not having their promised effect, i.e., increased revenue.

Funny how that works.

First, despite his rather cavalier dismissal of federal spending , saying simply that it "outpaces inflation" that substantially understates the case, in much the same way as saying that the South Pole is "somewhat cool". In point of fact, Federal spending has substantially increased:

Since 2001, even with record low inflation, U.S. federal spending has increased by a massive 28.8% (19.7% in real dollars)—with non-defense discretionary growth of 35.7% (25.3% in real dollars)—the highest rate of federal government growth since the presidencies of Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. This increase has resulted in the largest budget deficits in U.S. history, over $520 billion in fiscal year 2004 alone. Furthermore, the projected spending for 2005 is a conservative estimate, since it doesn’t include at least $50 billion for the 2005 cost of the Iraq occupation.

Technically, though he is correct. Spending increases have certainly outpaced inflation.

Revenues, of course, are down as well:

And you can take that 2005 estimate with as many grains of salt as you like.

So clearly we have an unsustainable spending situation going on, with massive spending increases, and declining revenues. So, why are revenues down? Alan Greenspan, earlier this year, provided the answer:

In part, the recent deficits have resulted from the economic downturn in 2001 and the period of slow growth that followed, as well as the sharp declines in equity prices. The deficits also reflect a significant step-up in spending on defense and higher outlays for homeland security and many other nondefense discretionary programs. Tax reductions--some of which were intended specifically to provide stimulus to the economy--also contributed to the deterioration of the fiscal balance.

The chief problem with the federal budget has not been revenue losses due to tax cuts, but rather revenue losses due to the recession that began in early 2001, and the implosion of the stock market that began in the spring of 2000, which reduced equity values across the board by 40%.

To go back to MK-Ultra:

Only two explanations present themselves: Revenue is down because there simply aren't that many people working. Or Bush's tax cuts are not having their promised effect, i.e., increased revenue.

Even if one assumes that the payroll data from the establishment survey are absolutely correct, that still puts our current rate of employment of 5.5% at the same rate it was in July of 1996, which is hardly remembered as a time of great tribulation. Indeed, the unemployment rate never reached as low as 5.5% from 1974-1988, or from 1990-1994. So, it's a bit dumb to pretend that a 5.5% rate of unemployment is a crisis. Moreover, if in fact, the establishment survey is missing employment because it does not account for changes in the composition of the labor force, the actual unemployment rate is below—and judging by the household survey, significantly below—5.5%.

As far as the Bush Tax cuts not having their desired effect, i.e. increasing revenue, there's really no way we can know that one way or another at this point. Both rounds of tax cuts were back-end loaded, although the 2003 round moved $100 billion in cuts to the front end as a stimulus method. Considering the time it takes for tax cuts to filter into the revenue basket, especially if they come during a recession, it seems to me that it is hard to bifurcate out those effects.

What we do know, however, is that despite the complete implosion of the equity markets, followed by the 9/11 attacks, the recession of 2001-2003 was fairly shallow, all things considered. Those of us who remember the back-to-back recessions of 1982-83, with unemployment above 10%, have some historical experience to go by, and the 2001-2003 recession was extremely tame compared to that. It was, in fact much shallower than the 1991-1992 recession, where unemployment peaked at 7.6% a full 1.3% higher than it reached at any time in the last four years.

If, as John Maynard Keynes first taught us nearly 70 years ago, that stimulus through deficit spending and tax cuts is the appropriate remedy for ameliorating recessions, then I suggest that the tax cuts and increasing deficits, while not increasing revenue, certainly helped to make the recession shallower, and, by so doing, prevented even worse hemorrhaging of the fiscal situation.

If, in fact the tax cuts do eventually increase revenue, that will happen at the top of the economic cycle, when economic growth is higher, and the period of expansion is longer than it otherwise would have been. Tax cuts at the bottom of the cycle don't increase revenues; they merely help cut the losses.

As regular readers know, though, I am not a Supply-Sider, so I dispute that, outside of certain bounds, Supply-Side economics has the powers its advocates attribute to it. So, I am agnostic that the Bush tax cuts will increase revenues. But, even I were to accept, arguendo, that Supply-Side policies work in the exact way Supply-Siders describe, I would argue that we are either very close to, or perhaps slightly to the left of the equilibrium point on the Laffer Curve.

As such, any reductions in taxes, no matter how spiffy they are at keeping the economy growing, will not result in significant increases in tax revenues, and, may actually result in revenue decreases.

But that, of course, is a subject for another post.

The Job Picture gets muddier

There's been discussion and debate for quite some time as to whether the BLS payroll survey or the Household Survey more accurately reflect job growth. To this point, most have felt it was the payroll survey. But an op/ed in USA Today says, "hold on".

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently snuck out a telling confession beneath everyone's radar: Its flagship payroll survey is likely undercounting hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The article, by Timothy Kane and Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation is worth the read. They note that when looking at the economy, it seems everything adds up - except the payroll survey:

In his July 20 testimony to Congress, Greenspan cited measures from the payroll and household surveys. Then the Federal Reserve, led by Greenspan, voted unanimously to raise interest rates. It said the economy is "poised to resume a stronger pace of expansion" and noted that labor-market conditions continue to improve. It's no secret which survey would lead to that conclusion.

The Fed's actions helped everyone, including Wall Street, remember the good news. Claims for unemployment benefits, for example, are 10% below their 30-year average, while the unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level since 2001. Best of all, the household survey showed a gain of more than half a million jobs in July alone.

Everything adds up — except the payroll survey.

So, per these guys, it appears that there have indeed been more jobs created than have been counted in the payroll survey. If we're going to judge the health and stability of our economy with certain statistics, it would help if they're accurate.

They also mention the following:

The definition of a job has changed, but the payroll survey hasn't. It is a huge mistake to focus on an illusory problem of economic weakness. Instead, policymakers should update business laws to reflect the new reality — the rapid pace of change in the workplace.

Time to take a good hard look at the BLS payroll survey.

One last thing mentioned in this article that caught my eye:

American workers need health care that's portable between jobs. They need pensions and 401(k) rules that are as flexible to move between employers as they are. What they don't need is more hot air about flawed statistics.

Want health care reform? There it is. Its as easy as making insurance portable. It should be the job and choice of the employee as to which insurance pool he chooses to join and he or she should also have the ability to change whenever their needs change. Make health insurance portable and you eliminate "preexisting conditions" and periods of no coverage. Institute competition for clients among insurers and see pricing adjust.

UPDATE (Dale):

Andrew Grossman ws kind enough to provide a direct link to Mr. Kane's paper, which the article references.

Now, I generally don't refer to publications put out by politically oriented think tanks. Without casting aspersions on anyone, the simple fact is that the job of a conservative or liberal think tank is to provide ideologically sound interpretations of data for use by their political allies. I prefer to refer, therefore, solely to peer-reviewed work from the academic world, or from government sources like the generally quite good working papers released by the economic staffs of the various Federal Reserve Banks and the like. Once you quote Heritage on policy X, someone invariably points to an opposing paper put out by some place like the Progressive Policy Institute, which doesn't get you very far.

No doubt, someone will point out how convenient that Heritage has published a paper that says the jobs picture is better than the government says it is, just as we are moving into the fall campaign season.

With that caveat noted, however, I think Mr. Kane's work deserves a close look at the very least. For the last year or so, we've seen very large discrepancies between the number of jobs the payroll survey is indicating, and the number of people who are telling us, via the household survey, that they are gainfully employed. So far, no one has come up with any convincing rationale that allows us to try and rectify this obvious discrepancy. Even the BLS is stumped.

The BLS reviewed the disparity in a major study for its October 2003 Advisory Committee, concluding, "To date, BLS has not been able to pinpoint a source or sources of these differing trends in employment growth." More recently, the February 2004 Economic Report of the President noted that "the explanation for why these two surveys' results have diverged so markedly over the last few years, and what this might indicate about the economic recovery, remains a puzzle."

My own, tenative conclusion, and the one I've been touting for several months, has been that the rise in self-employment is being missed by the payroll survey. Mr. Kane appears to agree.

Self-employment is a different matter, and the latest statement by the BLS commissioner confirms the appearance of a new class of contractors. The evolution of the workforce--specifically, the demographic emergence of consultants and contractors who do not consider themselves self-employed--is a likely wedge between the surveys. Self-employment has grown by over 600,000 in two years, and misidentification by the LLC and consulting workforce implies a much higher number.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is that the establishment survey is more precise than the household survey, for a number of statistical and practical reasons. But, that only remains true as long as the composition of the workforce doesn't change radically. A shift from direct employment, to employment as a contractor or an LLC may not seem like self-employment to the worker, but that is, in fact what it is. So, if there has been a workforce shift towards contract work, the payroll survey, no matter how accurate it is methodologically, will still be wrong, simply because it can't record what it doesn't measure.

I'm loathe, however, to place a lot of reliance on the household survey in terms of taking up the slack, because there's a lot the household survey doesn't measure, too. Bob may say he is employed full-time, but, just because he counts, say, selling cocaine as a full-time job doesn't mean that we should count it as such.

So, I doubt the employment picture is quite as good as the household survey indicates, but, I doubt it's as low as the establishment survey says either.

The Evolution of Horatio Hornblogger

Captain Ed is getting very mainstream. After recent media mentions in the Washington Times among others, and a bit in the Wall Street Journal today, Captain Ed has sold a blog post to the New York Sun.

I remember when he was just a beginning blogger, still learning the ropes. I remember, because I was right there with him. Good work, Ed. Keep it up.

This mainstream infiltration--for lack of a better term--is something that should be occurring more and more often among the better writers and researchers in the blogosphere. The media, and especially the more advocacy-journalism publications, have an amazing resource: hundreds of writers who do their research and publish for free. They could be picking up valuable opinion pieces and research like this, this and this for very little, indeed.

They should, too. Those who don't will be left behind soon, wondering why they didn't see the freelance gold being published every day.

AWOL for the Goose...

Was Kerry AWOL? I mean, it appears he did skip out on his active duty Reserve obligations in the early 70's.

Look, I don't think he was AWOL, and I don't think he was wrong to ask for an early out on his obligation. But I do wonder if the same people who accused Bush of getting out early--"deserting for a year even from this surrogate service", and that he fulfilled his obligation "only because he had essentially been relieved of any further obligation"--will go after Senator Kerry with 1/10th of the righteous anger with which they went after Bush for, essentially, the same thing.

Wait. No. I don't wonder about that at all.

NOTE: You can find a plausible exculpatory explanation of his status here. It concludes....

I conclude that Kerry, while in violation of his contract (as I was) was not legally required to drill and hence not AWOL...

Now, where have I heard that before?

Exploiting Max Cleland

Being from GA, I used to have a lot of respect for Max Cleland. He was the epitome of someone who'd shaken off the horrible effects of losing three limbs in Vietnam (for which, ironically, he did not get a Purple Heart ... no hostile fire) and and literally pulled himself back together, entered politics and was much beloved by the home folks.

Until he became a Senator. Then, it seems, Max got Potomac Fever. He became a staunch party man. He began to show an increasingly conservative state an increasingly liberal side. The final straw came when he voted against Homeland Security in favor of labor union rules.

Of course Max has come to prefer to believe he was sacked because his "patriotism was questioned". Nothing could be further from the truth. No one in GA has ever had a question about Cleland's patriotism. They've had many questions about his voting record however. And they turned him out because of it. What's happened since is sad:

In one of the stranger photo-ops in an increasingly bizarre presidential sea son, former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland yesterday rode his wheelchair to the front gate of President Bush's Texas ranch to protest attacks on Democratic candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record.

Cleland lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam — hence the wheelchair — but we won't patronize him by pretending he is anything other than what he became after losing his Senate re-election race two years ago: bitterly resentful, highly partisan and an effective deflector shield for Kerry whenever the latter's military bona fides are called into question.

Cleland has willingly allowed himself to be exploited by the Kerry campaign. As the NY Post notes, "an effective deflector shield" for Kerry when the "combat Kerry" meme is questioned. A triple amputee sitting in his wheelchair trashing other vets who are speaking out as is their right. Apparently Max doesn't see the irony.

The other irony is instead of letting this die a natural death, the Kerry camp keeps it alive with stunts like Cleland pulled yesterday. Why?

And, for better or for worse, Kerry has made Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign — though it is not at all clear why Kerry & Co. are working so hard to keep this issue alive.

As evidenced by Cleland's visit to the Crawford ranch.

"The question is where is George Bush's honor. The question is where is his shame," Cleland said after Secret Service agents at the Texas ranch refused to accept a letter calling on Bush to disavow the anti-Kerry veterans.

Tough talk.

Yes, tough ... and dumb. And because it was dumb it provided a perfect opportunity for the Bush people to respond:

"You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up," said a Bush spokesman.

Game. Set. Match.

The Kerry campaigns shameless exploitation of Cleland's bitterness is telling. Even more telling is Cleland's willingness to be exploited. Does anyone really believe yesterday's photo op would have had much of an impact if say, Tom Harkin had delivered the letter? Of course not.

Why Cleland is so bitter toward George Bush is beyond me. Bush has done more for Cleland since his defeat in the Senate than the Democrats have. He appointed him to a cushy $130,000 a year job on the board of the Export-Import bank:

Former U.S. Senator Max Cleland (D-GA) is a member of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank). President George Bush nominated Cleland on Nov. 21, 2003. He was subsequently confirmed by the Senate and sworn in on Dec. 15, 2003 for a term expiring January 20, 2007.

But that was then and partisan Max is dealing in the now. Of course, it seems the exploitation of anyone to get Kerry into the White House, no matter how sad, shameless or distasteful it is, appears to be par for the DNC/Kerry Campaign course.

As Opinion Journal points out, in 1971, Kerry said in his testimony before the Seanate:

"I called the media. . . . I said, 'If I take some crippled veterans down to the White House and we chain ourselves to the gates, will we get coverage?' 'Oh, yes, we will cover that.' "

Cruel, calculated and exploitive then and now.