The Washington Post’s headline: “Soldier Suicides at Record Level.”

BUT, they’re not.

As Jim Hoft, with data and graphics, points out,

The number of military suicides dropped during the Bush years compared to the Clinton years.

We know the New York Times and Washington Post closely watch each other’s stories, so as not to be left behind on a meme.

The Washington Post follows the New York Times down a statistical mud-slinging hole, depicting our servicemen and women as severely mentally troubled due to Iraq and Afghanistan, the NYT's says dangerous to others and the WaPo says to themselves.

In 1985, the Washington Post did the nation a service by analyzing the actual life path of Vietnam veterans, successful and above average of those who hadn’t served, compared to the troubled and suffering stereotypes peddled by the Left. The San Diego Union-Tribune followed up in 2005. (See here.)

Will we wait another 10 or 20 or more years before the New York Times and Washington Post correct the record? Indeed, will we have to wait at all for either to learn elementary statistics, or truth?

I’m watching the Republican debate on CNN, while looking at some of those liveblogging. The conversations in our heads are overcoming our listening.

New points aren’t being made. But, that’s not the point at this point.

The point is who is believable.

Romney certainly has the facts, but wooden delivery.

McCain has the warm delivery, of facts he formerly ignored.

Huckabee is warmest, experienced, and out of his league.

Paul reminds me of several congressmen I’ve met, my jaw dropping that they’re where they are instead of a nuthouse or roadhouse.

In sales, warmth sells. In politics, learning to listen works.

After an hour, McCain is more convincing, and Romney more believable.

What a dilemma: Electability Vs Competence.

Or, maybe not such a dilemma, as without electability, there will be even less competence.

On the other hand, there’s been enough “upsets” of CW to now that there’s no reason for anyone to yet forfeit their beliefs.

In either case, Republicans and other Americans have far superior talent to offer.

P.S.: McCain is not becoming accusing Romney of cutting-and-running from Iraq, instead of just stressing his own early lead on standing strong on Iraq.

McCain is becoming in stressing Romney's attack ads, and that Romney should have been clearer in opposing artificial timetables.

McCain is wiping the floor up on Iraq, as he should.

P.P.S.: I'll add in 20-minutes when the debate is finished.

Just heard strong wrap-ups by Romney and McCain. I believe Romney on leadership, and his proven managerial abilities. McCain's experience yielded too many wrong-way Corrigan's.

“A Little Trip Down Memory Lane,” is the subtitle of the Anchoress’ post for this election day.

It’s a valuable reminder of where we’ve been, and been fortunate to be, the past 7-years.

It should also be a useful reminder of where we’re not going the next administration’s years, at least if we don’t shape up in a hurry.

I’ve yet to hear any Republicans but a very few express anything but horror at a Democrat administration. Yet, I haven’t heard a positive program to bind us together, and bring others in, for that to happen.

In my rare chances to listen to the radio, today I listened to David Brooks on the Michael Medved show. Brooks was right to the point: Accept diverse views, and focus on new programs for the working and lower middle class to have opportunity to rise.

It’s, to me, that simple. And, that difficult in a Party that has increasingly defined itself on supposedly conservative litmus issues, though many are subject to legitimate differences, and focus on excommunicating rather than communicating with average people’s concerns.

I have definite likes and dislikes among the prospective presidential nominees, and will eagerly support any. However, I’ve yet to hear any offer the innovative policies that reach out to the working and lower middle class.

Most of us are so busy defending ourselves from foreign and domestic foes, both seeking expropriation of our very way of life, that we’ve ignored the concerns of those who want to earn a chance to share it.

That ranges, particularly, from increased legal immigration of the well-educated to increased access to quality, affordable education by citizens. That ranges, particularly, from increased support for families to stay together, the surest route of probability to success, to increased support for those temporarily struck by misfortune to help themselves get back on track.

Selfish and narrow isn’t the America that most Americans, or friends of America, or Republicans, find it worthwhile to stand up for.

Again, look back at Bush’s past 7-years, and see the thread that we all should have seen and still can for standing up for what’s right and decent.

I promised not to be negative, so I substituted “obfuscates” for lies in the headline.

In a blogger conference call today, as Powerline reports:

McCain also clarified his position on the Swift Boat Vets' 2004 ads. I've often seen McCain quoted as a critic of the Vets, but he was quick to say that he was only critical of the ad that questioned Kerry's combat record. McCain said he thought that was out of bounds. On the other hand, when the Vets went after Kerry's activities with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, his testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, his charges of atrocities and his antiwar activities generally, that was "legitimate" and "fair game."

In fact, immediately after the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth released their first ad, on August 5, 2004 John McCain called it “dishonest and dishonorable,” McCain not having either read the details in Unfit For Command, nor reading the affidavits of the Swiftees, nor discussing the matter with them. McCain was being “loyal” to his longtime friend John Kerry, and disloyal both to better veterans and the truth. McCain's comment was widely used against the Swiftees.

McCain never, afterward, spoke up for the Swiftees when their ads took on Kerry’s VVAW activities. McCain let the impression persist from his August 5 comment.

In 1973, however, McCain was more of a straight talker, to US News & World Report:

McCain publicly complained that the testimony by Kerry and others was “the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us.”

Sorry, John McCain, obfuscating doesn’t work, and is a further insult. You're not playing a "fair game" on this, nor "straight-talking."

A Saturday op-ed in the Boston Globe co-authored by Harvard Middle East studies scholar Sara Roy charges Israel with purposefully starving the population of Gaza. But in "Ending the Stranglehold on Gaza," Roy demonstrates her own stranglehold on truth.

Middle East studies scholar Martin Kramer takes apart Roy's claim that "Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 tons of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of 99 percent. Not surprisingly, there has been a sharp increase in the prices of foodstuffs."

As Kramer shows in "Gaza Buried in Flour," that means that "if Gaza has a population of 1.5 million, as the authors also note, then 680,000 tons of flour a day come out to almost half a ton of flour per Gazan, per day [emphasis original]."

Kramer traces the geneology of the error from its origins in an Egyptian newspaper to the Globe via this Harvard scholar, and notes that Roy herself claimed that Gaza needed 275 tons a day a decade ago.

Read the rest--it'll be the funniest thing you read all day.

John Hinderaker may be correct that Rudy Giuliani may have misjudged sitting out the early primaries, allowing others to have the stage of primary voters’ perceptions, the “strategy was a huge gamble, and it doesn't appear to have paid off.” That would leave a difficult choice for many, between Romney and McCain.

Still, one of the primary functions of primaries is to exhibit the fighting spirit and smarts of the prospectives. Giuliani’s own choice to sit out the early primaries cannot be laid against others.

But, Giuliani’s possible last stand may be with class that I applaud. I just received a copy of Giuliani’s closing Florida primary ad, and it’s a doozy of positive spin, compared to tawdry attack ads and statements by others.

Rudy Giuliani Campaign Launches “Not Endorsed”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4iD0JVIYmI

Winter Park, FL – The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee today announced the launch of a new web video, entitled “Not Endorsed.”

Visit http://www.joinrudy2008.com to view the video. The script is below.

Script for “Not Endorsed”:

Voice Over: “Rudy Giuliani is not endorsed by The Tampa Tribune. Not endorsed by the Orlando Sentinel. Not endorsed by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. In fact, he’s not endorsed by any of the liberal newspapers. When you’re responsible for cutting people’s taxes by an incredible seventeen percent …”

Chyron: “Rudy cut taxes 17%”

Voice Over: “… and announce a plan to give Americans the biggest tax cuts in history …”

Chyron: “Announced plan to give biggest tax cut in history”

Voice Over: “… when you fight to appoint conservative federal judges …”

Chyron: “Fought for Conservative Judges”

Voice Over: “… want to grow America’s military to make sure our families are protected …”

Chyron: “Wants to Expand the Military”

Voice Over: “… demand that new citizens learn to read, write and speak English …”

Chyron: “New Citizens must Read, Write, and Speak English”

Voice Over: “… and that welfare recipients work for the benefits …”

Chyron: “Required Welfare Recipients to Work for Benefits”


Voice Over: “… you’re the last person on earth to be endorsed by the liberal New York Times. Rudy Giuliani. Tested. Ready. Now.”

Chyron: “Tested. Ready. Now.”

Mayor Giuliani: “I’m Rudy Giuliani and I approved this message.”

So do I.

***For Immediate Press Release***
January 28, 2008
Contact: Phil Orenstein
Email: maduroman@att.net

Queens Village, NY - Dr. Sharad Karkhanis will be honored as the Educator of the Year on February 10th for his distinguished scholarship and the courageous battle he is presently waging against an unprecedented legal assault on freedom of speech and freedom of the press in a repressive urban academic environment. The awards presented at the annual Lincoln Day Dinner at Antun’s in Queens Village, sponsored by the Queens Village Republican Club, are designed to celebrate outstanding contributions to the greater good of the New York community. The Club, the oldest GOP group in America founded in 1875, stands behind Dr. Karkhanis’s battle for his constitutional rights and has allotted 5% of each Dinner ticket sold to be donated to his defense fund, “Free Speech for Sharad” to help defray the legal bills.

The Dinner program will feature a number of noteworthy and controversial speakers and honorees besides Dr. Karkhanis. Queensborough Community College History Professor and Lincoln scholar Gerald Matacotta will revive the historical tradition of the annual Abraham Lincoln Address with a presentation bringing Lincoln’s moral principles into focus on our present day state of affairs. Queens Village resident Major Jeffery R. Calero, who perished in Afghanistan in November when an IED detonated while he was on combat patrol, will be honored posthumously with the Ultimate Sacrifice Award to be presented to his fiancée, parents and siblings. Michael P. Ricatto, successful entrepreneur and founder of Better Leadership America, which advocates for a safer and more secure America, will be receiving the Businessman of the Year Award for his passion to give back to the New York community something greater, in appreciation for the opportunities he was afforded in America. Jeffery S. Wiesenfeld, City University of New York Trustee, who advocates improving academic standards at CUNY will speak on: “The poisoning of our next generation by our academics throughout our nation.” The keynote speaker will be George J. Marlin, author and former Mayoral candidate and Director of NY and NJ Port Authorities, will address the topic: “Is there a future for New York Republicans and Conservatives.

Dr. Karkhanis Professor Emeritus of Political Science from Kingsborough Community College (KCC), is presently being sued for defamation in a $2 million lawsuit filed by fellow professor and union official, Susan O’Malley (aka: Susan Gushee O’Malley) accusing him of making recent defamatory statements in his email newsletter The Patriot Returns, 13,000 issues of which he has been regularly distributing to CUNY faculty since 1992. Dr. Karkhanis has often criticized the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), the CUNY faculty union leadership for mismanagement of funds and has lambasted Professor O’Malley for trying to land teaching jobs for convicted terrorists at CUNY, writing that she has an “obsession with finding jobs for terrorists” and is trying to “recruit terrorists” to teach within the CUNY system. The lawsuit charges that such statements are defamatory.

Ever since he first criticized her in 1995, Professor O’Malley, former chair of the University Faculty Senate (UFS) and PSC executive committee member, has been trying to silence Dr. Karkhanis, since his reporting has been hurting her re-election campaigns for union and University Faculty Senate (UFS) seats (Patriot 3/22/95). “In December, Prof. O'Malley ordered Sharad to stop the publication of the Patriot. Does Prof. O'Malley realize that KCC Campus is neither the Gulag of Marxist Russia nor is it a Nazi concentration camp…understand that Sharad is a free man - free to speak, free to write, free to talk to anyone… There is nothing you can or anyone else can do about this.” (Patriot 3/19/96)

In 1997 Dr. Karkhanis received two death threats at KCC, which he believed to be coming from a faculty member of KCC or CUNY who wants to shut down the Patriot. The FBI launched an investigation and campus security protected him while on campus and he had the service of a bodyguard whenever he went off campus.

In the April 2000 CUNY union elections the “New Caucus” took control of the PSC, and the Patriot has been their watchdog ever since. The Patriot exposed the leadership’s excessive involvement in political activities, funding radical causes and supporting the legal defense of convicted terrorists and criminals with the member’s dues, while the union Welfare Fund that members rely upon for medical benefits nearly vanished. The Patriot reported, “under New Caucus stewardship the WF Reserves have dropped from $15,000,000 to below $2,000,000.” The PSC leadership has organized and funded such radical pressure groups as, “New York City Labor Against the War” and “Labor for Palestine”, donated $5000 to support the legal defense of Lori Berenson, in prison for aiding Marxist Shining Path terrorists in Peru, and donated a sizable amount for the defense of Sami Al-Arian convicted of conspiracy to aid terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad. After the 9/11 attacks, the PSC organized anti-war teach-ins on CUNY campuses blaming the attacks on “American Imperialism” at one of the events, and mobilized its membership to protest the Republican Party at its National Convention in the city in 2004. Since they have been in power, the Patriot has monitored the PSC leadership’s failure to negotiate a satisfactory contract for CUNY faculty members while spending a considerable amount of $60 million in collected dues money on irrelevant and dangerous political causes.

Recent issues of the Patriot have targeted O’Malley’s tireless efforts to find teaching positions at CUNY for convicted terrorist conspirator Mohammad Yousry, and Susan Rosenberg, convicted Weather Underground terrorist, sentenced to a 58 year prison term for the possession of 700 pounds of dynamite. Karkhanis wrote satirically: “There are hundreds of qualified people looking for teaching jobs. Why does she prefer convicted terrorists who are bent on harming our people and our nation, over peace-loving Americans?” (Patriot 3/12/07)

On September 28, O’Malley filed a lawsuit with the New York Supreme Court seeking $2 million in monetary damages for wrongful statements published in the Patriot and a permanent ban on the future publication of offensive material against the plaintiff. In a subsequent interview in the New York Sun concerning the lawsuit, O’Malley said: “It’s all very, very silly.” After Karkhanis refused to be intimidated into silence by the threat of a costly lawsuit, the formal legal complaint, Susan O’Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe was filed on December 21, 2007.

One week prior to filing the formal charges, O’Malley lost two UFS seats by more than 50% of the vote in the KCC elections held for campus senator and alternate. This is the first time since 1980 she has been voted out of her UFS office. It appears that these election defeats dealt a humiliating blow to O’Malley by fellow KCC faculty who may be loosing respect for her due to the frivolous nature of the lawsuit. CUNY faculty have argued that such matters of dispute between colleagues should be dealt with in a collegial setting within the CUNY system rather than making it public in a court of law with frivolous charges and outrageous monetary claims.

·Free passes and special accommodations for the press will be made at the Dinner event at Antun’s.
·Regularly updated news and information on Dr. Karkhanis’ case can be accessed from the Free Speech at CUNY Website: http://freespeechcuny.blogspot.com/
·The Patriot Returns archives can be accessed at: http://www.patriotreturns.com
·The formal legal complaint: Susan O’Malley v. Sharad Karkhanis, John Doe and Jane Doe is posted on Professor Mitchell Langbert’s blog: http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2007/12/susan-omalley-v-sharad-karkhanis-john.html

[[END OF RELEASE]]

Leave it to the US’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to come up with the answer to Gazans streaming across the border with Egypt, or Hamas’ threat to set off a human wave across the border with Israel.

The Jerusalem Post says Israel already has the “Scream Machine”: “a machine that releases sound pulses that cause nausea, disorientation and dizziness. “

The JP also refers to the US’s “Pain Ray” that it says is in use in Iraq.

Photo courtesy AFP.

SpaceWar describes the “Pain Ray”, or Active Denial System (ADS):

[ADS] is a weapon that emits a beam of energy that will make the target feel a strong burning sensation on their skin, repelling them without causing genuine injury. the ADS is a parabolic antenna-like unit that shoots out a focused electromagnetic radio-frequency beam of millimeter waves over 500 meters (yards), giving it a much greater range than many crowd-control devices like rubber bullets or water cannons. When they hit their target, the beams penetrate the skin to about 1/64th of an inch, or 0.4 millimeters, causing a sensation that makes people think their clothes are on fire. This can be used to scare off a menacing mob without causing real injury, according to DARPA.

Call it a Hamas Hotfoot.

New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, proves once again why instead of being # 1 among “readers representatives” or ombudsmen he’s Public Fool #1. Indeed, anyone taking him seriously must enjoy being fooled by his mealy-mouthed defense of the NYT’s “War Torn” series.

Hoyt says no harm intended but can’t get away from admitting the use of “squishy numbers.”

Hoyt says, “the questionable statistics muddy the message. A handful of killings caused by the stresses of war would be too many and cause for action.“ Yet, but a statistically insignificant number of cases are found after 8-months of research, faulty at that, and no causal evidence is presented, except for assertions by defense attornies seeking lesser sentence or generalizations from PTSD “industry” psychologists.

What actions are called for by a statistical improbability, an outlier, very rare exceptions? What actions are called for by the probability that the NYT’s and its minions will consistently defend the indefensible and attack the reasonable?

To start with, Patterico presents the bottom-line on Hoyt: “Newspapers should figure out how to give these ombudsmen real independence, or scrap the whole concept. Phony representation of readers’ views is worse than no representation at all.” Hoyt should go.

Phony representation of concern for veterans is worse than no concern at all. The NYT’s agenda of misrepresentation is transparent, no matter how Hoyt seeks to obscure it.

I won’t waste your time or mine with links to my or others prior columns on this. Hoyt’s absurdity stands alone as self-condemning of and as shoddy journalism.

I wasn't going to, but AGAIN John Hinderaker at Powerline devastatingly dissects Hoyt et. al. for work so shoddy that tort lawyers would delight in the case if the NYT's were a manufacturing company.

Knowledgeable people whom I respect have come out for Romney, McCain or Guiliani, and presented sound arguments.

The California primary is on February 5, and I’ve never delayed so long in completing my mail-in ballot. We’re truly faced with a choice among excellent prospective presidents.

All offer strong leadership, strong skills, strong experience, strong principles, strong electoral chances.

I’ve observed the 11th Commandment, to speak positively about the alternatives, and avoid lambastes. I deeply regret those who have taken the course of attack, whether justified or not. It wasn’t necessary, and is harmful to our more common beliefs and ends.

I hereby announce my endorsement.

I will vote privately, and enthusiastically support whichever of the three comes out on top. My ultimate faith is in the collective wisdom of Republicans, to determine which has the necessary fire, which can light a fire.

However, I reserve my right to come out against any who are more interested in being critical of each other than in providing a constructive case for themselves. It isn’t necessary, and is harmful to our more common beliefs and ends. Falling into this dark side will indicate a lesser self-confidence, manners, and power to overcome.

What more does one need to say, besides rot in hell George Habash.

Israel News reports:

PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas announced three days of mourning following the death of George Habash, the founder of terror gang PFLP. All PLO flags will be at half mast and there will be an official "house of mourning" in Abba's Ramallah office.

These are some of the PFLP's crimes in 40 years of existence:

· 1970, the PFLP blew up a Swissair flight to Israel in midair. 47 people died, including 15 Israelis.
· 1972, Japanese terrorists trained by the PFLP murdered 24 people, including 16 pilgrims from Puerto Rico, at Lod airport.
· 1976, PFLP terrorists cooperated with German terrorists and hijacked an Air France jet to Entebbe, Uganda. The hostages were freed by Israel in a daring raid.
· 1980, PFLP terrorists took over the children's room at Misgav Am in northern Israel, and murdered a baby, as well as the kibbutz's director.
· 2000, Habash retired from active leadership of the PFLP, for health reasons.
· 2001, a PFLP squad assassinated Israeli Minister Rechavam Ze'evi.
· The PFLP carried out three suicide bombings between 2002 and 2004, at Karnei Shomron (3 murdered) at Geha Intersection (3 murdered) and at Shuk HaCarmel in Tel Aviv (3 murdered).
In April 2005, the Shabak (General Security Service) told the press that it had successfully uncovered a plot by a PFLP cell to murder Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadya Yosef.

The New York Times adds:

But his list of enemies did not stop at Israel. He was sharply critical of existing Arab governments, most of which he said should be overthrown; of a long series of attempts at peace negotiations; and of his longtime rival, Yasir Arafat. A stubborn opponent of the Oslo accords, Mr. Habash refused to set foot in the areas under the nominal control of the Palestinian Authority.

In turn, he earned the enmity of King Hussein of Jordan, who in 1970 expelled all the Palestinian guerrilla factions who had been threatening his rule — most notably that of Mr. Habash — in a brief but fierce civil war remembered by Palestinians as Black September.

The NYT's continues:

Although his tactics softened somewhat in the 1980s, and his organization receded from the headlines, Mr. Habash remained a determined Marxist who continued to denounce Arab governments he felt were too closely aligned with the West and Palestinian leaders he suspected were ready to make concessions to Israel. In an interview in 1970, he remarked that he would not accept money from Arab countries that “stink of American oil,” and he frequently argued that victory over Israel would only come when the traditional Arab governments had been replaced with revolutionary regimes.

For those who argue America's retreat from Vietnam had no ill effects:

Mr. Habash later remarked that the Arab defeat that year [1967] convinced him of the need to adopt a strategy like that of the Marxist guerrillas in Vietnam. “By 1967, we had understood the undeniable truth, that to liberate Palestine we have to follow the Chinese and Vietnamese examples,” he said in an interview in 1969.

Jill Stevens, Miss Utah, an Army medic who served in Afghanistan, was selected by the public as “America’s Choice” for Miss America.

Unfortunately, the judge’s thought otherwise.

No wonder, as the AP reports,“The fading institution has struggled to find a television home since being dropped from network television in 2004.”

Producers had hoped a new confident attitude would show through on the catwalks, and Miss Utah, Jill Stevens, an Army medic who served in Afghanistan, didn't disappoint.

"Home of the country's highest birth rate - as long as the Osmonds don't move," she announced.

Miss Utah didn't make it to the final 10, but she took the disappointment with pluck. When her name was called, she dropped and gave the audience push ups before joining the other losers.

Stevens however was selected "America's Choice," based on voting via text messages from viewers of a reality show that was designed to make over the beauty queens and draw in a younger audience.

Of course, Jim Hoft has all the pictures that matter.

The third installment of the New York Times’ “War Torn” is beginning to give me PNYTTSD – Post New York Times Turd Stress Syndrome: The urge to violently toss it in the trash. Fortunately, as this excremental series gets deeper, my suffering tour of its words is getting shorter, now 2751 versus 6253 for the first installment and 5219 for the second.

James Gregg returned from service in Iraq. After a night of partying and drinking, his girl dumped him for another. Gregg spun the wheels of his truck, spraying gravel on the other man’s. The other man beat him in a fist fight.

...Later that night, with one eye swollen shut and a fat lip, he drove to Mr. Fallis’s neighborhood.

Mr. Fallis emerged from a trailer, removed his jacket, asked Mr. Gregg if he had come back for more and opened the door to Mr. Gregg’s pickup truck. Mr. Gregg then reached for the pistol that he carried with him after his return from Iraq. He pointed it at Mr. Fallis and warned him to back away.

Mr. Fallis moved toward the trunk of his car, and Mr. Gregg testified that he believed Mr. Fallis was going to get a weapon. He started shooting to stop him, he said, and then Mr. Fallis veered toward his house. Mr. Gregg fired nine times, and struck Mr. Fallis with five bullets.

Gregg’s lawyers claimed sympathy and reduced sentence, and engaged expert witnesses, that Gregg was supposedly suffering violent PTSD.

Neither the jury nor the judge was buying it, although the jury’s finding was for second-degree rather than first-degree murder. The judge, presumedly a Democrat as former Senator Tom Daschle had sought to put him on the federal bench, said Gregg had “dodged the bullet.”

Nonetheless, the judge said that Mr. Gregg did not deserve any of the “downward departures” from sentencing guidelines that his lawyers had requested in consideration of his military service, his PTSD and his crime-free record. The mandatory minimum for a federal offense involving a gun is 10 years, and Mr. Gregg’s lawyers indicated that they hoped he would be sentenced to no more than 12.

Judge Kornmann handed down a 21-year sentence.

The New York Times’ narrative presents some arguments for and against the aggressive defense use of PTSD to avoid or reduce sentences for violent crimes. The defense exploitation of this defense seems obvious, to gain sympathy.

The New York Times still hasn’t told us why, now 14,223 words into “War Torn”, its exploitation of a few crimes committed by veterans should so outweigh coverage of the overwhelming majority’s heroism and successful reintegration into civilian life. That, too, seems obvious.

Scott Johnson, of Powerline, goes into surgery on the photos spread around the world in the MSM of Arafat donating blood in sympathy with the victims of 9/11. Non-surprise: a bloody lie.

Richard Landes goes to the Gaza beach to further expose the bloody lie carried by the MSM around the world that Israel was at fault for a family’s tragedy. Other Landes film examinations of Pallywood are here. More at Solomonia.

Another example of Pallywood.

I wonder if the Egyptians are ready for whatever “productions” Pallywood is preparing to elicit MSM sympathy at the Gazan border. Or, will the MSM be more willing to believe Egyptian demurrals than Israel’s?

Although some political opponents of French President Sarkozy are critical of his public romps with model Carla Bruni, I’d rather her transparency to that of prospective First Mate Bill Clinton, exposing the couple’s do-anything pursuit of power.

Rare, but this day I’d rather be French.

According to Spiegel Online, the DT magazine spokesperson, where the photo appeared, Maria Sanchez told SPIEGEL:

[T]hat the photos had been taken just before Bruni and Sarkozy made their romance official in mid-December. Says Sanchez: "It's Carla Bruni's last photo shoot."

We wish Bill Clinton had similar newfound modesty, instead of Bruni.

Arun Gandhi, whose anti-semitism I and others wrote about and his column-host Washington Post apologized for, offered to resign from his University of Rochester hosted institute. His resignation has been accepted.

BUT, Arun continues his views, only blaming the Rochester Jewish community, and expecting to be able to return to lead the U of R sited institute, while the Washington Post continues his column.

With characteristic straight-face:

His next book, he said, is on "my understanding of the Mahatma's non-violence".

Arun has already written the “book” on chutzpah. The Washington Post and the University of Rochester need to write his final chapter, by not forgetting, and by ending their relationship with him.

I doubt that any major newspaper would publish a press release from a pharmaceutical company or a pharma company’s related “research institute” without at least mentioning the fact of the source’s involvement, the one-sided self-interest of the press release, and questioning the source’s credibility.

Yet, newspapers across the country carried the press release journalism by the Associated Press and New York Times and other newswires about the George Soros funded “study” of what it calls lies by those in the administration who sent us into Iraq. Soros is not mentioned, nor is the methodology of the “study” questioned, nor is context of any import that – aside from every intelligence body in the Western world believing the charges against Saddam – today’s Democrat Party leaders believed Saddam was a serious threat who must go.

Bob Owens, who led the dissection and exposure of the rotten core of Beauchamp and the New Republic, does it again with this so-called study. READ IT.

Bob writes me, there’s more:

Sadly, I didn't have enough space to include all of Dr. Kuyper's comments--the post was already in excess of 2,500 words--but he noted quite a few more examples of bogus "research" in the CPI study.

Perhaps these guys should work for The Lancet?

Though they do draw their paychecks from the same convict billionaire either way, so it may not matter...

MSM reporters have access to the Internet. They, ultimately, draw their paychecks from readers. Will MSM reporters follow-up, or are they indebted to ideological paychecks from Soros fronts?

John Del Vecchio writes to tell us about his new film company, Charlie Foxtrot Entertainment, to tell the positive story of our efforts in Iraq. Assisting him is the veteran military advisor of Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Band of Brothers, and Forest Gump. As Del Vecchio says, a man’s or nation’s story is its fate, and he means that our fate be success over dreadful opponents.

“Abuses of power in the pursuit of freedom are not justification for the abandonment of that pursuit.”

“Opting to not defend freedom, integrity and human rights leads to abuses, atrocities and holocausts far worse than war. In war there remains an element of hope; under tyranny all hope is destroyed.”

I wrote those lines for my mother in 1990, shortly after finishing For The Sake of All Living Things, a historical novel about the fall of Cambodia and the ensuing Khmer Rouge destruction and death trap which enslaved the nation and murdered nearly one third of it population. I had spent five years researching the topic, cross-referencing after-action battle reports, news articles, political histories and refugee interviews. I’d listened to or read hundreds of stories of cruelty and torture, including many perpetrated in the late 1960s and early 1970s under the North Viet Namese (NVA), the Khmer Viet Minh (KVM) or the embryonic Khmer Rouge (Khmer Krahoum--KK).

My mother had a left-leaning friend to whom she was sending a copy of my novel. The woman believed the Cambodian Terror was caused by immoral American intervention. I was attempting to condense the entire meaning of the book into a few sentences. If her friend read the book, she would learn of the 1971 battles of Operation Chenla II in which U.S. air power supported South Viet Namese (ARVN) and Cambodian National (FANK) ground units (allies) which were clashing with NVA, KVM and KK units (communist forces). The last mentioned, the KK, at times attacked all others factions. Toward the end of the battle allied forces broke the hold the communist had on a ‘Year Zero’ camp north of the city of Kompong Thom. Approximately 40,000 civilians escaped en masse. Many described to western reporters a gulag—internment under the harshest conditions, tortures, execution of civic leaders, of anyone who could read, of anyone who owned a book. They told of mandatory classes, of lectures and indoctrination into a world of the “new socialist man.” This was nearly four years before the fall of Cambodia, Viet Nam and Laos. At that time (1971) most western papers, including the New York Times, chose not to run the refugee stories. The Chicago Tribune was a courageous and responsible exception. My mother’s friend was not from Chicago… how could she have known what communist subjugation would mean? In 1990, if she didn’t read the book, I had hope that those brief lines might at least impact her beliefs.

Almost two decades later a significant element or our society still perceives the tragedies of Southeast Asia as caused by or exacerbated by American intervention. Many do not tie (or actually deny) the blood baths, the concentration (reeducation) camps, the repression, or the Cambodian holocaust to the terrorism which proceeded the fall. Yet behavior tends to be consistent. The 1971 ‘Year Zero’ camp north of Kompong Thom was an omen and precursor to the horrors of 1975 to 1979.

These omissions, denials and sentiments seemingly are being replicated and superimposed upon the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Americans seem to believe (though perhaps not in these terms) that there have been abuses of power in the current pursuit of freedom, and thusly we should abandon that pursuit. To them, we are guilty, always guilty, thus freedom just is not worth defending; especially if it is the freedom of others. Why?

Perhaps we should ask: Can a free society survive if it no longer believes it has the obligation to preserve freedom, integrity and human rights? Can it survive if its people are no longer willing to sacrifice to defend, or assist in the establishment of, freedom for others? Can it survive if a significant segment perceives their defenders as immoral, corrupt, or causative of the ultimate evil—war? Can accurate, realistic stories alter these beliefs?

I believe honest, realistic, balanced stories can. The story we tell our selves of ourselves creates our self-image; behavior is consistent with self image. This is true on micro and macro levels, for individuals and for nations. Ambient cultural story—call it common knowledge, conventional wisdom, popular memory, ethos or political lore—controls behavior. This is a basic tenet. Ancient Greek philosophers spoke of it as, ethos anthropou daimon, a man’s story is his fate. So too, a nation’s myth, the story it tells itself of itself, is its fate.

In today’s culture, no medium is more powerful at establishing or influencing our ambient cultural story than the mass media. Within the media, film is perhaps best in defining who we are. Because of this, I have joined with four other veterans, with service from Viet Nam to the current conflict in Iraq, to form a new multi-media company, Charlie Foxtrot Entertainment (CFE).

At CFE we believe that, in large measure, America is a nation of empathetic, good-hearted people who care about the suffering of others around the world; that Americans oppose injustice and hate tyranny and despotism.

Our nation sends its troops to the far corners of the earth to assist others in dire need, and to do battle in the global war on terrorism, yet it seems that despite being inundated via radio, television, newspapers, magazines and movies, our nation and its military are seldom portrayed in a positive, or even realistic, light. Often the images are negative. Rarely do they show the actions and accomplishments of America as constructive, inspiring or heroic.

Is it any wonder that some, like my mother’s friend, believe that America is immoral, that it is the root cause of all the evils around the world? As a people, we are tormented by contradictory images, and we are confused about why others around the globe don’t understand who we are, or for what we stand.

If the story of American institutions is continuously skewed by relating only tales of dishonesty and moral bankruptcy, then the story itself undermines the very foundation of our democratic freedoms. If the gatekeepers and disseminators of information and story repeatedly focus on the foolish, the corrupt, the greedy, or the bigoted, those characteristics become self image and thus behavior.

At CFE we seek to fill the void in the way our story is being told. CFE is a for profit company with the mission of becoming the top market provider of military-based entertainment. We will leave it to others to seek out and tell the stories of the worst of the American military. Without whitewash, we will tell the stories of the best, of the heroic, or the inspiring—stories that are poignant and thrilling, that accurately portray the guts and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.

CFE is honored to be affiliated with long-time Hollywood military advisor, Marine Corps Captain (Ret) Dale Dye (Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Band of Brothers, Forest Gump), who will direct our first feature-length film, City of Fire. This is the dramatic story of the battle for Mosul, Iraq, on the day following that country’s first free elections in decades. It is our intention to follow this project with a slate of five additional films in the next four years.

We expect viewers to leave the theater after seeing a CFE film desiring to emulate the heroes who have inspired us. We want to let our service men and women know they are appreciated, not forgotten, not dehumanized or relegated to being anecdotal cannon fodder for the evening news.

For more information on the projects of CFE, please visit charliefoxtrotfilms.com

Judea Pearl has learned his moral philosophy the hard way, both through careful scholarly examination and personal tragedy. Pearl expands upon his comments about Arun Gandhi, Arun being one of a cohort of dangerous relativists about violence.

Judea Pearl sees a wider problem than from this hypocritical grandson, too typical of genteel critics of the West, a “cult of the superficial.”

To say "we are all guilty" is paramount to saying "no one is guilty," like that bully who excuses himself with the rejoinder, "They all do it."

Sweeping generalizations that spread guilt too broadly, tend to obscure the anatomy of violence; they drive attention away from critical factors and pivotal players, and hamper our ability to take corrective actions….

It is pointless, of course, to explain to Jihadis that terrorism earns its ominous and morally reprehensible character not through body count but through "intent," i.e., the intent of perpetrators to harm the innocent -- Jihadis refuse to get it.

One would expect, however, that modernity-minded thinkers should grasp this defining distinction and use it to tell a good guy from a bad one -- they, too, refuse to get it….

Symmetry is so seductive, and the idea that every strife has two equivalent sides so deeply entrenched in our culture, that even well meaning intellectuals fall into its trap….

For a grievance to turn into an act of terror, two additional ingredients are necessary, each non-violent in isolation: a twisted prism of reality and a twisted license to kill…

As provided by Arun Gandhi and his ilk, and widely allowed to pass without judgment by media, creating a “banalization of violence.” Last time that term was widely used was by Hannah Arendt, her “banality of evil,” when outrageous atrocities by Hitler were accepted as mundane events instead of strikes against heaven itself.

As I wrote about here, the intolerable is not deserving of tolerance.

From Left to Right, from almost every of the many commentaries I’ve read this morning on our economic travails, the term “moral hazard” is exclaimed.

Those accustomed to thinking this refers to loosened social morals are not far wrong. But, there’s a wider issue involved, the breakdown of personal and mutual responsibility and consequences.

The term “moral hazard” stems from insurance and economics: Engaging in risky behavior because of the lack of incentive or punishment to guard against a risk, due to being protected against it or relatively immune to consequences.

What better explains the behavior of Wall Street and giant investors, seeking huge bonuses from short-term profits on security creations that no one – including themselves – understand? What better explains the behavior of multinational corporations and investment funds – mostly or heavily dependent on foreign revenues – selling out key technology and management influence to sovereign investment funds controlled by unfriendly governments? What better explains the behavior of most of Congress’ spending excesses, with presidential complicity, divvying up our hard-earned tax dollars for personal enrichment and electoral longevity?

Here we return to the social aspects of “moral hazard.” Ultimately, only the voters harmed by such fat-cat profiteering will have an incentive to demand accountability. That happens once in a generation or two, when the pain becomes unendurable and personal, usually at times of deep recession. Until now, stockholders, homeowners, taxpayers have benefited more than feeling harmed.

That may change dramatically, if some’s more dire economic predictions come to pass. Unless it happens in a hurry – and I by no means look forward to that – 2008 will likely set us up for such severe trials, and reactions, during the next administration.

Such reactions may be salutary, as in electing representatives who actually exhibit a track-record of responsibility, or swing too far or off pivot, as in imposing stifling regulations ultimately harmful to all.

All of the leading presidential contenders, from both Parties, are either part of the creation of this “moral hazard” problem via their own economic dealings or are inclined toward promising short-term fiscal relief without longer range reforms – including setting a moral tone of leadership in their arguments.

The root of the difficulty that most Republicans feel in settling on a nominee choice is unease with the front-runners’ “moral hazard.” Most Democrats don’t feel this unease, having long ago settled into a statist mentality, now buttressed by the Democrats’ own fat-cat leadership cozy with government-fed largesse.

It surprises me, as it may some others who think they know me, that this stream of thought is leaning me – still undecided – toward Giuliani. As a lesser of evils, he’s exhibited the most adaptability to sea changes in national circumstances, with a decisive bent toward the interests of America and everyday Americans’ primary requirement for sane security, firmly rooted in understanding how the legal and legislative process works and can be managed for change.

I'm sure to hear many reactions, and look forward to the discussion.

Comments:
From someone I respect, paraphrased: Guiliani's personal life is a mess, and he's a social libertarian, a mixed bag for some conservatives, but we're voting for a Commander-in-Chief and chief executive. He's solid, sincere, reassuring, gritty, and forward-looking.

While my favorite talk radio show is Hugh Hewitt’s, and his blog is a daily must read, I’m tired of all-Mitt, all-the-time. I admire Hewitt’s dedication to any cause he takes on, but I think he’s gone over the edge now.

Today’s post by Hewitt, about “McCain's Opposition To Comprehensive Catastrophe Insurance,” is uncharacteristic nonsense and, worse, entirely contradicts federalist principle and spending restraint.

McCain opposes a federal reinsurance of state pools for catastrophic disasters. Hewitt says:

Now the Arizona maverick has rebuked Florida voters for looking for federal help on an issue of extraordinary concern to all Americans who live in regions the insurance industry would rather not cover. While there are certainly a spectrum of approaches to the problem of recurring natural disasters, McCain's blanket rejection of any federal role outside of FEMA's is the sort of political tin ear that underscores why Democrats say they fear his candidacy even as they realize he is the much weaker general election candidate than Giuliani or Romney.

It is within the jurisdiction of the states to curtail construction in known high-danger zones, like the Florida and Gulf coastline and the California delta. Yet, year after year, wipe-out after wipe-out the states allow reconstruction there, using many billions of taxpayers’ dollars from elsewhere in the country.

Would Hewitt just allow this to not only continue but increase encouragement for this recklessness? Does Hewitt feel comfortable in a similar league as thankfully departing Senator Lott, exploiting his Congressional power to repair his Katrina damaged house?

McCain is willing to oppose it, correctly. Hewitt appears to be more concerned with opposing McCain.

I’m not an advocate of McCain, but I am an advocate of “straight talk.”

John McCain’s fairness is both what attracts and repels.

I’ve been mentally laboring to understand McCain, his supporters and opponents.

It’s easy enough explanation, and correct as far as it goes, to just point at the positions McCain has taken over the years.

But, that doesn’t explain, more predictively what positions McCain might take as president. Nor does it explain the many staunchly conservative luminaries who have endorsed McCain over another closer to their views.

McCain’s appeal to Republican-leaning independents and, even, to many Democrats isn’t just because he’s a maverick or appealing to some in the MSM, but that support for him is felt by some GOP grandees as reason enough to support McCain, due to presumed greater electability.

There’s another, deeper, dimension to McCain at work.

John McCain is staunchly committed to an overriding principle of fairness, or more precisely a fair fight.

McCain’s firmly entrenched fairness works for good and ill, attracts and repels, depending upon the particular application. However, fairness is the underlying essence of McCain’s character that is staunch, attractive across a wide spectrum, and most predictive of what one can expect from him.

In a field of Republican competitors with solid records but trimming sails to meet the winds of primaries, McCain is seen as least likely to waver his core. In a field of Democrat competitors, McCain’s character – together with his experience – stands in stark contrast to their pandering and poisonous campaigning.

McCain’s root in his conception of fair fighting is what led to McCain’s support for campaign finance regulation, for compromising the judicial “nuclear option,” for restrictive interrogation, even – initially – for Kerry’s presumed innocence against proof of his war record’s exaggerations and lies.

That rootedness in fair fighting is admirable and admired by many. What isn’t is that, together with McCain’s haste to take positions primarily due to it, McCain ignores the ramifications of its excesses and fails to take into account other, very important desiderata, like facts of the matters for example, or his posture being exploited by temporary allies with entirely different principles, actions and goals.

That’s what many believe makes McCain in power potentially dangerous to many core Republican constituencies.

Still, it’s what attracts many outside the core whose orientation is more usually labeled egalitarian, leaning independent or Democrat.

The key question for conservatives as we move through the primaries will be whether they believe McCain will be more considered in his snap dispositions, or whether McCain’s almost fixation of his conception of fair fighting will result in surrendering too many redoubts of freedoms and their defenses.

In 2001, there were 44 U.S. members of the ombudsman organization. In 2008, there are 36.

The ombudsman movement once promised us and itself to be true “readers representatives,” delving inside their venues to investigate what went wrong.

Instead, most ombudsmen spend their valuable space occasionally correcting a minor matter but most often telling customers that they’re wrong to expect integrity or accuracy.

The New York Times’ ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, epitomizes this current, telling us that the primary reason to have disclosure of reporters’ relationships with partisans is “to make the newspaper less vulnerable to attacks” rather than to prevent reasons for attacks.

A former newspaper reporter bemoans, correctly, the rush to the bottom, of journalism, information and short-term profits, by major cities’ newspapers.

An observer of the business of journalism argues that the middleman is being superceded by more direct access to the news, and by more balance in reporting.

The continuing decline of newspapers’ economics portends more cuts.

Will ombudsmen continue to be Chevy salesmen, in lots emptying of customers, or will they use their access within to point out how well the new competitors are doing and why? If they care to not attend shrinking conventions, they should start doing their job of being “readers representatives.”

5219 words, and what do you get?
Another week older, and deeper in killer vet

With apologies to Tennessee Ernie, that’s how I felt while reading this week’s installment of the New York Times’ series “War Torn,” already torn to shreds from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post to any sentient being in the blogosphere during the past week as transparent, statistically silly, dangerously damaging agenda journalism.

This week, the series delines the descent from Mormon alter boy to mentally wracked Iraq veteran to confessed murderer of his childrens’ mother. It’s truly chilling. The NYT’s points out the occasions where either the military, the VA or the Marine himself missed possible opportunities for stronger intervention. Like a macabre thriller, where the terrible ending is already known, one wants to yell out, “please help him.”

This week, the NYT’s points out:

Clearly, Mr. Smith’s descent into homicidal, and suicidal, behavior is not representative of returning veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. But among the homicide cases involving recent war veterans examined by The New York Times, Mr. Smith’s stands out because his identity as a psychologically injured veteran shaped the way that his crime was perceived locally and handled by local authorities.

His crime was treated compassionately, with consideration of his obvious remorse and the trials he’s seen. That’s commendable.

Really, not to take away from this story telling, it’s still not a telling story about our servicepeople serving.

The fact of the matter is that there’s a lesser incidence of violence upon return to civilian life than among non-serving civilians. See here for example.

The NYT’s choice of focus, however, is upon the rare exceptions, and at a forecast total tens of thousands of words, the size of a book. Instead, where’s the focus upon the statistically greater successes in adjustment among veterans, greater civilian career successes than non-serving cohorts?

When that happens on the pages of the NYT’s, we’ll be more willing to believe it has compassion for veterans rather than exploitation of a few’s sad trails.

ALSO, see Not just murderers, they’re homeless too

A blogger-friend adds this artwork:
Hollywood Refuses To Be Left Behind

My article below which is currently featured in FrontPage Magazine is based on my recent letter to the sponsors of the New York Academic Bill of Rights presently in committee in the state legislature.

This is the story about an embattled student who stood up to challenge his incompetent radical professor and the dramatic outcome that ensued. Aaron Haberer is a student from Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), who received a failing grade for disputing his professor’s virulent anti-America, anti-religious demagoguery in the classroom. Aaron’s story is an example of the type of flagrant abuses of student academic rights that increasingly typifies much of the college experience today. This testimony is meant to show that the more students have the courage to complain, the better the chances that some action will be taken. Yet there are many such cases that never hit the radar. In most cases, school officials have failed to step in or come to the aid of a beleaguered student as they did in Aaron’s case, but though they may fear repercussions in their grades or careers, if enough students and faculty are bold enough to speak out when they experience professors infringing on their academic rights or using the classroom for indoctrination, then there is a greater likelihood that college administrators, trustees and faculty of good sense will step in to remove the bad apples before they infect the rest of the barrel. Read more...

Just before the New Year I had sent a letter via email and fax to the lead sponsor of the ABOR bill, State Senator DeFrancisco, and to over 50 New York State Senators, Assemblymen and Committeemembers who are involved with ABOR. After I received several formal replies as a matter of “Senatorial courtesy,” I spoke with John Googas, the chief of staff for my state representative, Senator Frank Padavan who mentioned that most of the legislative recipients would not even read the letter if I’m not one of their constituents. However I did receive one positive response from my mailing, copied below. That’s why it’s most urgent for concerned New Yorkers to write to their own state representatives and inform them about the abuse of the classroom for the purpose of political indoctrination, and ask them to support the ABOR legislation.

January 10, 2008

Dear Mr. Orenstein,

This is in response to your letter regarding Assembly Bill A4406, “to ensure that students enrolled in institutions of higher education receive exposure to a wide range of scholarly viewpoints, and to recognize the academic rights of faculty members.” Thank you for taking the time to write and advise me of your views and concerns.

This piece of legislation was referred to the Education Committee on February 2, 2007. Should this bill come to the floor of the Assembly for a full vote, I will be voting in favor of it; I am also signing on as a
multisponsor to this legislation.

If either my staff or I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at 845-463-1635 or via email at millerj@assembly,state.ny.us Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Joel M. Miller

Member of Assembly

102nd Assembly District

JMM/klp

I earlier posted (here, here and here) about the despicable anti-semitism of Arun Gandhi in his Washington Post column.

The Washington Post, now, wanly agrees Gandhi was out-of, indeed, way over the line.

Judea Pearl’s letter to the Washington Post follows, and is a must read compared to those of slippery morality.

Gandhi Post Regrettable

As “On Faith” readers know, a post by Arun Gandhi on January 7 has produced an enormous response from readers who found Gandhi’s initial remarks anti-Semitic and his subsequent apology insufficient. When we undertook this project over a year ago, we wrote that our goal was to shed light on a subject—religion—that too often generates heat. The Gandhi post failed to comply with that mission, and we can only ask our readers to extend “On Faith” a measure of forbearance and tolerance as the site endeavors to conduct a civil and illuminating conversation. We regret the initial posting, and we apologize for the episode.

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on January 18, 2008 9:03 AM

Gandhi's Words an Insult to all Decent People
Mr. Donald Graham,
Chairman,
Washington Post
Washington, DC
waterst@washpost.com .

Dear Mr. Graham,
We met at your office four years ago, after I spoke at a Freedom Forum event in memory of
32 journalists who lost their lives in 2002, including my son Daniel Pearl.

The reason for writing this letter to you is a disturbing article entitled "Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence," by Arun Gandhi, which was posted on the Newsweek/Washington Post website (On Faith, January 7) and which states, among other whimsical allegations, that, "Israel and the Jews are the biggest players" in the creation of a "Culture of Violence that is eventually going to destroy humanity."
You probably received many complaints about this article from individuals and organizations concerned about the ramifications of these words, in view of the authoritative reputation of the Post and the legendary prominence of the author's grandfather.

I wish to add my personal, independent input on the matter.

In his final moments Danny told his captors on camera:
"My father is Jewish, My mother is Jewish, I am Jewish,"
and, as President Bush said in the White House last month:
"These words have become a source of inspiration to Americans of all faiths."

My son Daniel died mighty proud of his Jewish identity. He, like the millions of decent and peace-seeking Israelis, and Americans who proudly carry on their Jewish heritage, did not see his identity as "dependent on violence" as the title of Gandhi's article implies.

Mr. Graham, the article your editors have allowed to be posted is a painful insult to everything Daniel stood for, to everything America stands for, and to every decent person inspired by Daniel's words.

Too many people were killed, abused or dispossessed in the past century by words of irresponsible authors, often disguised as scholars or humanitarians, who pointed fingers at, and blamed one segment of society for the ills and maladies in the world.

Arun Gandhi did just that.

We live in an era in which people are deeply troubled by the path this planet is taking. Violence is on the rise and no sensible strategy is in sight for containing it. Gandhi decided to exploit this state of anxiety and transform it into a mob hysteria directed at Jews, Israel-supporters, and Israelis.

Gandhi and the Post cannot be exonerated by making distinctions between "Israel policies," "Israel existence", "Judaism" or "Jewishness", as Gandhi has attempted to do in his semi-apology.
The title of Gandhi's article reads "Jewish identity," and one's identity is an inextricable part of one's psyche and being. Your editors approved of (perhaps even composed) this title, and they understood exactly what it means, who is being blamed for the world's violence, and how dangerous the consequences of these words may be.
The hatred that killed my son Daniel was created by wreckless incitements of this sort, propagated and aided by the very media of which he was a proud member.

As one of the nation's most credible and respected newspapers, the Post has a responsibility to curtail, not facilitate, the propagation of hatred, bigotry and falsehood.
If Gandhi wishes to voice objections to Israel's policies, the Post should encourage him to do so by detailing to the public what alternative, more effective means he deems Israel should use to defend herself. Instead, the author was allowed to make sweeping allegations, and portray the Jewish people as possessing an inherent disposition toward violence, unleashed and given license by the Holocaust.
I trust that you use the moral authority the public has bestowed upon you and not only distance yourself from the words of this thoughtless author, but assure the public that such editorial oversights do not signal a shift in the Post's policies vis a vis the maintenance of decent and responsible discourse.
I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.

Sincerely,

Professor Judea Pearl, President
Daniel Pearl Foundation
POSTED BY JUDEA PEARL ON JANUARY 18, 2008 8:06 AM

ee additional at Solomonia and at LGF.

Much of intelligence work depends upon oneself not falling into credulity, a disposition arising from weakness or ignorance to believe too readily, and to take advantage of others’ credulity.

There’s been much discussion about why the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate summary, reducing the threat of Iran’s nuclear program, and about whether this NIE is complete, correct, or even deceptive.

A recent discussion of these matters delves into the means of encryption and its uses, to protect or deceive. PBS described the panel:

The Bush administration made an extraordinary turn around from declaring Iran had a nuclear program to saying it hadn't. Why was the intelligence gathered from the Iranians so easily accessible? Why didn't they use encryption? Why don't you? To discuss this are encryption experts Thomas Lipscomb, Senior. Fellow, Information Technology and Telecom, The Heartland Institute, and Kim Taipale, Executive Director, Center for Advanced Studies. James Goodale, former Vice Chairman, The New York Times, and head of the Digital Law practice at Debevoise Plimpton hosts.

The link, and the video is here:

Of note, is that the former Vice-Chairman of the New York Times was so willing to give credulity to the NIE, when the NYT’s believes so little else from this administration.

Thomas Lipscomb, one of the panel participants, offers us these additional considerations:

SHOULD YOU TRUST THE MUCH-HERALDED NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM?

One of the most stunning “revelations” in US intelligence history was the agreement between the Bush Administration and the National Intelligence establishment to publicly release an extracted summary they called “The National Intelligence Estimate” recently. Since NIEs are internal documents within an Administration, Republican or Democrat, to help guide or inform policy decisions, not to rally popular support, surfacing even this summary was an exercise in pure propaganda.

Both the Bush Adminstration and its intelligence agencies have been badly battered by questions about intelligence failures and suspicions of outright lies about the underlying reasons for the Iraqi War. The clumsy and inarticulate Bush Administration has been constantly on the defensive against assaults by its political enemies as well as the press on these points. And the intelligence community has been trying to regain at least the appearance of its “objectivity” by leaking damaging information about the Bush Administration for months that led to the absurdity of the Valerie Plame witch hunt. George Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark to Bush about the Iraqi nuclear capability in the run up to the invasion of Iraq has been dragging like an anchor behind its own credibility for the past 4 years. Tenet himself retired quietly waving a Medal of Freedom.

In what appeared to be an uneasy alliance, the NIE was released at the end of 2007 indicating that more recent intelligence had shown a slow down in Iranian activity to gain a military nuclear capability subsequent to the American invasion of Iraq. This was quickly read by the media and politicians as a welcome indication that perhaps the Bush Administration was not so eager to decapitate the Iranian nuclear threat as they had feared.

Was the NIE release the mutual protective ploy described? Was it misread by the press? Was a laptop belonging to a top Iranian nuclear scientist that German intelligence gave the US THE key to the change in the NIE?

What everyone seems to have forgotten is that the primary purpose of intelligence is to create confusion for others while clearing it up for its own purposes. No one in their right mind would believe “revelations” from US intelligence in a public display of matters like this any more than they should believe the Iranians.

What one should remember in considering these issues is that everything we are allowed to see is for effect. There is a deadly game going on here and no one is going to risk something of value by blathering anything of any importance to anyone else, much less the public. It is rather like the climactic scene at the end of Orson Welles’s LADY FROM SHANGHAI in which zillionaire cripple Everett Sloane and his not so loving wife Rita Hayworth shoot it out in a fun house full of mirrors. Everything about the shoot out is set in a total atmosphere of deceit. Neither party knows if they are shooting at their target or its reflection. Neither party really understands their own vulnerability either.

Last week someone passed around a quiz to define where one stood on the ideological spectrum. I came out a “Statist Centrist,” primarily because I refused to take all-or-nothing positions on many issues. Most of my email friends came out further along the “Conservative” or “Libertarian” axis.

That is the divide that confounds this race for the Republican presidential nomination. The scales for ideologic self-identification are largely irrelevant, particularly for the selection of Republican presidential nominee. Republicans, and Republican-leaning independents, are all over the park, for various good and real reasons.

Many commentators ascribe this to lack of enthusiasm among Republicans for any.

Instead, it reflects a greater degree of pragmatism, although weighed differently by each, among Republicans. Any of the leading Republican candidates will do, but one or some more than others in hewing to a stronger line on one or more elements of particular concern to each Republican.

Democrats don’t have this “impediment.” They’re pretty much willing to line up behind anyone who will deliver power to their Congressional caucus, in order to move the country in the largely indistinguishable direction of more central control over our lives and pockets, weakening internal and external security, and abdicating foreign commitments.

I receive dozens of emails each day from the camps of Thompson, Romney, McCain and Giuliani, as well as some from Hunter’s. My sympathies lay with Duncan Hunter, probably the most conservative of the bunch, based on courage, consistency, experience, and in-depth knowledge. Yet, he lingers at the bottom of the pack, due to lack of funding, lack of MSM appeal, lack of national name recognition, conservatives focusing elsewhere, and thus lack of electability.

I don’t think anyone would call Hunter a “Statist Centrist.”

For that matter, that categorization, or “Statist Leftist,” would more apply to the Democrats.

That’s why labels will be less important in 2008 than previously. Or should be, as it will play into the Democrats’ hands, as there are more non-absolutists ideologically than there are absolutists.

Instead, in McCain and Giuliani we have obviously flexible men, and in Romney and Thompson a similar flexibility currently hidden behind words meant to appeal to a conservative Republican base during the primaries. McCain and Giuliani are doing less damage to their prospects in the general election, because they are keeping their appeal wider.

Will this impede more ideologic Republicans from enthusiastically supporting McCain or Giuliani, should they get the nomination? No, as all are unified in utter terror at Clinton or Obama.

What it does mean, however, is that the 2008 election will be more about concrete issues than about labels. That’s where the Republicans have the stronger arguments of wider appeal. Although the liberal leaning wording of polls show wide leaning toward “tax the rich,” toward “lessened foreign involvement,” toward “helping the poor,” and such, in the reality of the voting booth more decisions will be made based on individual character, of the voter and the candidate, and on self-interest, for financial and national security.

2008 will be a far more pragmatic election than ideologues of Right or Left expect.

That’s something to be enthusiastic about, especially for Republicans.

UPDATE: “One piece of bad news for liberals is that it seems that the self-assessed ideology of the American people is still somewhat right of center.”

That’s from a liberal, reflecting on a Pew study of how leading candidates fall on the ideologic spectrum compared to all, Democrat and Republican voters.

He also notes: “Looking at the GOP side where ideological distinctions between the candidates are more pronounced, it's interesting that all voters seem to classify the contenders almost entirely on the basis of cultural matters.”

It’s not just on the front-page or editorial page that the New York Times and cohorts assault American foreign policy with misinformation and diatribe.

Such misreporting shows up in many other stories and contexts, all undermining both our resolve and our understanding of the world.

I’m honored to have as friend Sol Sanders, whose 40+ years of reporting on Asia is unequaled for knowledge and for judgment. Sanders is a former correspondent for Business Week, U.S. News & World Report and United Press International. Bookmark his weekly column at World Tribune for analyses you will not find elsewhere, often fed by contacts who know the real story.

An important aid to our logistics in Asia has been Japanese refueling operations for our Navy. But, the New York Times’ “current special correspondent in Japan, Norimitsu Onoshi…has been waging a one-man war against Japan’s conservatives and their commitment to the American treaty obligations.”

Sanders proceeds to fisk almost every assertion by Onoshi in his report carried in the NYT’s and around the world by the NYT’s wireservice.

The result: Totally erroroneous reporting. The consequence: Totally uninformed opinions formed, and the contributions of a faithful ally, Japan, unappreciated and besmirched.

As Sanders concludes: “In a much more dangerous world, the American media will be of little help in fighting the intellectual issues underlying the struggle for peace and stability against new kinds of enemies.”

At Campus Watch, two pieces that we commissioned appeared today, and both further confirm the intellectual decline of academe in general, and of Middle East studies in particular. It is a field beset by raw prejudice, willful blindness to empirical evidence, and a degree of politicization as high as that found in any academic endeavor.

Writing for FrontPage Magazine, Franck Salameh, who teaches in the department of Near Eastern Studies at Boston College, is happy to see the advent of a new academic organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA).

In "Seeking True Diversity in Middle East Studies," Salameh takes on the old guard of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) for its Arabist biases. Too often, professors ignore, downplay, or deny the region's ethnic, linguistic, and religious heterogeneity in order to present a distorted, ahistorical picture in which all Middle Easterners are Arabic-speaking Muslims. Because these same professors provide "expert opinion" for countless news organs, many Americans share their biases, albeit without the culpability of the professors.

Also published today is a timely piece by Jonathan Schanzer, an adjunct scholar at Campus Watch and the director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center.

Schanzer's op-ed, "Pessimistic Predictions: The Middle East Studies Sector Continues to Deny Success in Iraq," appears today at NRO. It shows that scholars such as Juan Cole of Michigan, Rashid Khalidi of Columbia, and Fawaz Gerges of Sarah Lawrence College have ignored contradictory evidence to downplay or deny the successes of the Surge in Iraq.

Bruce has documented the New York Times's ongoing efforts to smear veterans as homicidal maniacs. Some professors are equally determined to deny them their due credit for victories on the battlefield, as well.

Michelle Malkin writes about,

A French company is now apologizing to the government of China over an ad it created using an altered image of the Commie leader. If there were a Chinese equivalent of dhimmitude, this would be it…

Actually, the official image of Mao, hanging in Tiananman Square and every wall in China, is also a fake, as now exposed by the photographer.

Can't wait for the pollution-free, dissent-free images of the Olympic Games in China.

BTW, in China there’s a thriving occupation for Mao impersonators. But,

Keep in mind, this is a country where actors and comedians are not permitted to mock or make fun of communist leaders on TV. There is, in fact, no political satire at all in China. One finds occasional political cartoons lampooning foreign leaders — say, George Bush as a gun-slinging cowboy — but cartoonists are strictly forbidden to represent the Chinese leaders in this way. In America, exaggerated caricatures and joking portrayals of public figures inundate the media landscape, whereas the Chinese public sphere is virtually devoid of such images. Thus I was initially puzzled that the Mao look alikes were permitted to perform.

Of course, these performances should not be thought of as the equivalent of Dana Carvey imitating George Bush Sr., or impressionist Rich Little imitating Nixon. These impersonations of Mao and other leaders never veer into parody or ridicule. The actors must not exaggerate foibles or mannerisms for humorous effect, nor can they put inappropriate words in the mouths of the leaders that could elicit disrespect.

Now, China seeks to impose these rules on other countries. Where's MAD magazine when we need it?

Last Sunday was a “Rally for Freedom of Speech,” to support a strengthened law in New York State, as in many other states, to protect writers from international libel tourism. For more background, you may access prior posts here. Rachel Ehrenfeld leads the charge, and others are coming aboard.

The Association of American Publishers, for example, says:

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) welcomed the introduction of legislation in the New York State legislature that will make it harder for “libel tourists” to threaten authors and publishers in New York by bringing meritless defamation actions in plaintiff-friendly foreign courts. The legislation was announced at a press conference on the steps of the New York Public Library on Sunday morning, January 13….

The Association of American Publishers is the national trade association of the U.S. book publishing industry. AAP’s approximately 300 members include most of the major commercial book publishers in the United States , as well as smaller and non-profit publishers, university presses and scholarly societies. AAP members publish hardcover and paperback books in every field, educational materials for the elementary, secondary, post-secondary and professional markets, scholarly journals, computer software and electronic products and services. The Association represents an industry whose very existence depends upon the free exercise of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

One hopes the NYS legislature is listening.

We all owe Ms. Ehrenfeld our thanks and support.

John J. DiIulio Jr. writes a sensitive discussion of the New York Times’ “Wacko-Vet Myth.” As a distinguished professor of Political Science, specializing in “crime policy and health reform,” one might expect this sensitivity to the questions of care for veterans raised by the New York Times while he, as others, finds the NYT’s failing to put its numbers in proper context.

However, Professor DiIlulio misses two key points: First, the incidence of PTSD is widely exaggerated in the media and by the “industry” that has arisen to profit from it. DiIlulio just accepts the numbers commonly pervasive.

Second, DiIlulio misses that the NYT’s story is upside down. The NYT’s numbers should have led to a story about how well our veterans are doing compared to the non-veteran population, as the incidence rates of violent crimes (or charges of crimes) among veterans is lower and adjustments to civilian life more productive.

The NYT’s remains charged, by its own petard, of misleading "agenda journalism."

My latest essay, which appears today at FrontPage Magazine, fisks University of Michigan historian Juan Cole.

Without a shred of evidence, Cole proposed that the recent clash between the US Navy and Iranian speed boats in the Strait of Hormuz was a "GOP fabrication"; selectively quoted a New York Times blog comment to twist its meaning; and used the propagandistic Iranian media as a straight source.

Fine action from a former president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).

Writing in his well-trafficked blog on Friday, University of Michigan Middle East studies professor Juan Cole illustrates the baleful consequences of the media's reliance on Cole and other Middle East studies professors of his ilk to explain the Middle East to Americans: it makes possible the wide dissemination of a distorted, conspiracy-laden picture of that highly volatile region.

For in just a few paragraphs, Cole proposed or implied that:

1. The harassment of U.S. Navy vessels in the Straits of Hormuz by Iranian patrol craft last Sunday was possibly a GOP conspiracy;

2. That at a New York Times blog, an "experienced former naval officer" posted comments that further refuted the Navy's story; and

3. That suspicions voiced in the Iranian press that the videotape was released just ahead of Bush's visit to the region in order to pressure America's Arab allies "to make common cause with Israel against Iran" should be taken seriously.

Let's take these in order:

To continue reading this essay, click here.

After I sent up the balloon last night about the “NYT’s Vet Bashing Series” many bloggers have added their insights, none better than John Hinderaker at Powerline (a must read).

All of us attribute the defamation, anthropomorphically, to the New York Times.

Indeed, though, that’s a true depiction. Such a large front-page piece does not just appear when reporters write it. It goes through all the layers of management first.

This particularly slimy, statistically idiotic piece bears the seal of approval of the entire NYT’s hierarchy.

Merrill Perlman manages the copy desks across the newsroom at the NYT’s. In a Q&A last March, she describes the NYT's process:

The path an article takes from the reporter’s keyboard to your eyes is generally straightforward, though there are a lot of straight backwards, too, then forward, then backward ...

In simple terms, a reporter files to a backfield editor, who looks to make sure the article is generally solid and sound in its reporting. The backfield editor and the reporter will confer over suggested changes, improvements or deletions in "big picture" ways — the content as opposed to matters of style or grammar. Frequently, the article will go from the backfield editor to the reporter for changes, then back to the backfield editor, repeated several times, depending of course on how much time is available. Investigative articles, enterprise pieces, articles destined for Page 1 or those with particularly sensitive natures will also be looked at by the relevant department head (the Metro editor, for example), by one or more news editors or by the very top editors, including Bill Keller (the executive editor) and Jill Abramson (managing editor). Or by all of them.

Will Public Editor Clark Hoyt follow-up?

Will the fish wrapped in the NYT's pages care?

UPDATE: Thomas Lipscomb finds the NYT's analysis Lancet-like.

The San Diego Union-Tribune highlights a good question today: where does charity begin, and end? “Charity may begin at home, but should philanthropy be taxed just because its mission is global?” Seven locally-based charities with global missions are petitioning for property-tax relief denied them under a 1944 state voter approved law restricting such tax exemption to charities with local community benefits. “[A]n unknown number of nonprofits have property in California but do not qualify for the tax break because a substantial amount of their programs operate elsewhere.”

Meanwhile, heavily dependent upon property-tax revenue, as are all localities in California and in most other parts of the nation, San Diego’s mayor tells us that,

Mayor Jerry Sanders continues to see multimillion-dollar budget deficits in San Diego's future, as the city tries to catch up on long-term expenses that were neglected in order to sustain short-term services.

The city must balance its budget each year by June 30, so the gaps have to be plugged by cutting costs in other areas, a wrenching proposition for residents who have endured closures of public facilities and limited hours and fewer programs at those that remain.

The mayor, in a revised five-year budget outlook released yesterday, projected a deficit of $32 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1. The shortfall could reach $85 million in three years, he said, before falling to $50 million in 2013.

Governor Schwarzenegger, with apparent guile, proposes a broad reduction or scaling-back of state services and programs, due to a $14+ billion deficit.

At the national level, the income tax exemption for 501(c) charities is overly broad, while Congressional and presidential restraint is lacking and entitlements send us deeper into the red, for our children to supposedly be (broken) saddled with.

There’s a good point that is raised by proponents of broad charitable exemption: The government doesn’t own our property or income, and taxation should not be automatic.

However, when primary government functions are inadequately funded, when our most needy’s needs are not met, when we re-elect politicians who insist on being wasteful of our tax-dollars, when working and middle class taxpayers are hard-stretched, where should charity begin?

The New York Times starts a new series, called “War Torn”: “A series of articles and multimedia about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home.”

The first installment, 6253 words, is a considerable investment of ink, with more to come, by the New York Times to create negative impressions of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans and by extension the missions they served.

Yet, the New York Times could not find words to put the 121 cases of physical violence by vets in full perspective. For example, these 121 are a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent of the hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. This post does some quick calculations to come up with a smaller rate of homicides than among the civilian population.

The NYT’s does offer this: “The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.
This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”

To which the Pentagon offers this:” Colonel Melnyk questioned the validity of comparing prewar and wartime numbers based on news media reports, saying that the current increase might be explained by “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.” He also questioned the value of “lumping together different crimes such as involuntary manslaughter with first-degree homicide.” I'm sure the Pentagon had more to say, much of it unpublishable for polite company.

In short, the NYT’s has no serious methodology but a serious agenda.

The few stories the NYT’s presents, however colored for effect, are tragedies. But the greater tragedy is that we have to suffer the NYT’s agenda of defamation of another generation of veterans.

BTW, in August 2006, the NYT’s did deign to present 844 words about what even it admitted was the “definitive” study that debunked several decades of PTSD inflation.

I wrote about this study and other studies here.

How many decades will we wait for the NYT’s to surface from its decrepit depths to report on the debunking of its current defamations of veterans’ reputations?

UPDATE: Army Replies To NYT's

Army spokesman Paul Boyce told Reuters in an e-mail that Army statistics "show little or no increases in positive drug use, driving under the influence crimes or domestic abuse in the past years among the more than 300,000 soldiers who have deployed in this war."...

Boyce said the newspaper's statistics "appear to be based on a basic review of American newspaper crime stories from 2004 to 2006, rather than statistics provided by the U.S. Army or the Department of Defense, or even any interviews with military medical or judicial professionals."

Reuters characterized traitor Philip Agee, recently the fatal beneficiary of Cuban medicine, as a “whistle-blower.” Reuters has recanted, and Reuters now characterizes Agee as an “Ex-CIA spy who exposed agents.”

Fausta has more about Agee and Cuban medicine.

We are reminded of Reuters saying of the 9/11 terrorists, “one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

We are also reminded that words count for something.

“Reuters' global managing editor acknowledges that Arab intimidation influences his agency's news coverage.”

"Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor….

"My goal is to protect our reporters and protect our editorial integrity," he said.

Here’s this Reuters editorial policy enounced in 2007.

At least Reuters lets the Pope have his non-PC say: “Pope warns of terrorists getting nuclear weapons.”

That's the title of a new blog post by my Campus Watch colleague Cinnamon Stillwell.

Seems that Cole, to whom MSM frequently turn for commentary on the Middle East, will shill for CAIR down in Florida.

University of Michigan history professor and former president of the highly politicized Middle East Studies Association (MESA), Juan Cole is known for his boilerplate anti-Western remarks. His blog, Informed Comment, is chockfull of the stuff. This extremism may have accounted for the fact that Cole was denied tenured faculty positions at both Yale and Duke in 2006. It has certainly won him a starring role in Campus Watch's "Quote of the Month," which features more of Cole's unhinged commentary than those of perhaps any other Middle East studies academic.

Now comes word that Cole is to speak at a CAIR-Florida fundraising banquet in March, 2008. This is fitting for Cole and CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations) are two peas in a pod. Both act as apologists (and in the case of CAIR, incubators) for radical Islam and consistently paint the United States and Israel as the bad guys in the struggle therewith.

Read the rest here.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America issued this alert about Arun Gandhi, of whom I wrote here and here.

Gandhi Apologizes...Sort Of In Brief: Thanks to the many of you who wrote to the Washington Post and Newsweek about Arun Gandhi's anti-Semitic screed (see below) in the "On Faith" section of their joint Web site. This morning, January 10th, Gandhi apologized, sort of. He essentially wrote that he didn't mean to indict all Jews (as "the biggest players" in the "culture of violence" that is "eventually going to destroy humanity"), just the ones who support Israel's self-defense policies. And the Holocaust...he admits that lessons can be learned from it, but still feels that Jews hold on to this "grievance" too firmly, angering potential friends. Mr. Gandhi fails to comprehend that Israelis did not put up a security fence because they are supposedly fixated on the Holocaust. There is very real violence currently being perpetrated against Israel's citizens, such as Arab suicide bombings, sniper attacks and Palestinian Qassam rockets launched daily from Gaza. Gandhi's "apology" m