March 14, 2006 | By Nathaniel Ward

Distortions about our troops

But this poll is so flawed and skewed, Heritage’s Tim Kane reports, that we can’t draw anything useful from it.

The poll, which failed to meet standard guidelines for statistical sampling, asked a series of loaded questions. “Two of the most provocative results are based on questions with no middle ground,” Kane writes. “It’s like a multiple-choice test with no right answers.” Kane speculates that many soldiers would have recognized this trap and walked away, so only those who liked the answers to begin with completed the survey.

For example, one question asks “How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?” The first three answers began “withdraw…”, “withdraw…” and “withdraw.” This, Kane says, is puzzling. “Where are the options for troops who think the United States should stay for ‘one to two years’ or ‘two to five years’? Zogby omits such nuance. It’s stay or go. Now or never.”

“Did Zogby dare to ask anything that might result in good news?” Kane asks.

Meanwhile, the media’s negativity hit an absurd new low last week when USA Today ran a big headline announcing that 8,000 troops had deserted since the Iraq war began. But wait! The paper also reports that desertions are actually lower now than before 9/11—and that only one soldier actually deserted while in Iraq. Spin, anyone?

And here’s another bit of underreported news about the war: recruitment into the National Guard has picked up pace. For almost two years, liberals used declining recruitment numbers in both active duty forces and the Guard to claim that the war was going badly. But now that recruitment into both the Army and the National Guard is back on track—thanks, in large part, to soldiers returning from Iraq to sign up their friends—this liberal argument holds no water at all.

The Dubai deal: what now?

Last week, after intense Congressional pressure, UAE-based Dubai Ports World withdrew its bid to purchase the right to operate six American port facilities. Much of the concern centered around DPW’s status as a state-owned company from a region of the world known for ties to terrorism.

So what can Congress do to ensure that future deals of this sort—and there will be future deals, as the bulk of overseas trade is conducted by foreign companies—proceed smoothly? Among other things, Heritage’s James Carafano told the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure last week, Congress can update the laws regulating maritime security.

Carafano proposed Congress require that the buyers of port facilities:

• Hire only US citizens to be facility security officers at US ports
• Submit its security plan for Coast Guard review prior to the transaction and any changes thereafter must be approved by American officials
• Commit to reasonable steps to assist and support law enforcement activities involving the US facilities
• Participate in the Customs–Trade Partnership Against Terrorism

Carafano also recommended that Congress establish penalties for non-compliance with the above measures, which would apply for all maritime infrastructure, regardless of ownership.

There’s also a whole host of things Congress should not do to improve port security, as Carafano explains in a new paper:

• Throw money at the problem—this leads to waste, like a recent $1.2 billion grant to buy a fence
• Adopt protectionist policies—the same security rules should apply to both foreign and domestic companies, and foreign investment is essential to American prosperity
• Cripple foreign investment—while the current foreign investment approval process needs updating, allowing Congress to play politics with prosperity is not the solution
• Inspect everything—Inspecting every incoming container would be prohibitively expensive, substantially increasing costs for consumers, and not provide much additional security

Congress wants to stifle innovation

A new bill now before Congress would implement what’s called “network neutrality,” which would require telecom companies to allow content from other companies to cross their wires. In other words, your Internet provider would be required to let you view MyHeritage.org. Sounds good, right? Not so fast.

As Heritage’s James Gattuso explains, “network neutrality” would stifle innovation and discourage new investment.  “Telephone companies, for instance, are now spending billions of dollars to upgrade networks so that they can provide television service—in competition to existing cable TV providers. But that investment would be discouraged if the extra capacity thus created had to be shared with all others on a first-come first-served basis.”

Worse, this will surely hinder innovation in the future. Why would a company spend the money to develop a new communication technology if it has to be shared with others down the line?

In other news

• Members of Congress are working to revive the Online Freedom of Speech Act, a bill introduced last year which would exempt Internet communications from burdensome and restrictive campaign finance regulations. The Federal Elections Commission, which devises the regulations, has hinted in recent months that it might consider regulating political speech on the Internet—on the theory that opinions help candidates and thus can be considered donations.
• Catholic Charities of Boston has decided to halt operations as an adoption agency rather than comply with a state law that requires them to permit gay couples to adopt children. The agency is known especially for dealing with the most troublesome foster children.

Coming up at Heritage

To attend these or any other Heritage Foundation events, RSVP at Heritage’s events website. Or you can watch these events live online at Heritage.org. All times are Eastern.

• On Thursday, March 16 at noon, Emilio T. Gonzalez, the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, will discuss ways to strengthen patriotic assimilation, the process that transforms new immigrants into American citizens.
• On Friday, March 17 at 11:00, Christopher B. Burnham, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Management and a former State Department official, will discuss efforts to reform the corrupt organization—and how the UN bureaucracy is working to prevent it.

Nathaniel Ward is the Editor of MyHeritage.org—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation.

Sign up to get this e-mail

Fill out the form below to receive this e-mail product and more from MyHeritage.org as soon as it's released.

First Name*	Last Name*
Email Address *	Zip Code *
Are you currently a Heritage member?
	* = Required field.