格雷格伊斯特

众议员韦纳安德鲁，经过精心否认张贴在Twitter上有争议的图片-好莱坞美女冒充形容为“半裸体，”韦纳提出半下流- 只承认他 。佩林拒绝承认她是乘错了保罗里维尔的午夜-尽管她声称里维尔的目的是警告“英国” 。爱德华兹，目前面临刑事指控，是要坐牢的，由于一连串的事件始于当他拒绝承认有外遇危险 - 在被一个家庭价值观的副总统候选人吹嘘。总统竞争者纽特金里奇最初拒绝承认一个关于医疗改革的哑巴说话，然后声称自己的说法，他的报价是“谎言”。新泽西州州长克里斯蒂克里斯在第一次拒绝承认的私人旅行状态直升机 - 尽管它于电影！ - 然后谴责那些谁抱怨。

这些仅仅是在上周的例子，一个令人不安的趋势在公众人物 - 拒绝承认自己的错误。正如你做什么可能比你做了什么糟糕的是，拒绝承认错误可能比错误本身更糟糕说谎。

所有的人有时是错误的 - 相信我，我有丰富的经验！诚实的错误，使一个人入场直立和同情。相反拒绝承认错误，建议故弄玄虚，甚至狂妄自大。这样的人谁休夫斯和泡芙，拒绝承认错误不属于排序中处于领先地位。

在YouTube和Twitter的时代，它往往容易获得公众错误的证据。这使得它更让人毛骨悚然当政客盯着相机并否认自己犯了一个错误。

然而，我们周围的政治家谁否认自己的错误。在近代历史上，总统理查德尼克松和比尔克林顿否认重大的个人错误：一，结果失去了白宫，其他几乎一样。 （我会跳过许多实例中，公众领袖也不会承认自己的错误，因为他们认为，无论对错，这是在拒绝了国家利益。）

最近，在英国，英国前首相托尼布莱尔拒绝承认他的回忆录中说行出现摆脱了一部电影，他捍卫古怪的线条，但不是作为一个真实的故事“多次” 。在德国，国防部长卡尔西奥多祖加滕伯格拒绝承认抄袭了，以至于他几乎拖垮前政府承认并辞职 。

谁使那些曾经说，“我错了”，有时错误，“我向你道歉。”现在，他们否认一切，即使，与佩林，错误是相当轻微。

bollixing后，在波士顿，一个骑帐户里维尔的，佩林可以简单地说，“哎呦。”许多人的智能创造历史误区-有多少阅读本专栏可以形容，也就是说， 粉报警 ？

佩林被赋予了福克斯新闻的机会，简单地说，哎呀。主机克里斯华莱士问她：“你知道你搞砸关于保罗里维尔了，不是吗？”佩林回答说：“我没有搞砸了关于保罗里维尔...他曾警告英国。”佩林则说，作为问 - 在波士顿！ - 关于午夜骑是“疑难杂症类型的问题。”下一个不公平的媒体疑难杂症型的问题为前州长：谁在格兰特墓安葬？

有什么事要在这里工作是政治自负如此的巨大，谁出错的政治家不会这样说 - 因为这将是一个承认他或她是不是有点上帝在地球上行走。

猛烈抨击，而不是道歉，是在这方面不好的迹象。州长克里斯蒂，谁认为应该削减其他人主张回到政府， 抨击了在任何建议，他应该也。克里斯蒂只是暴露出他是一个伪君子自己。当金里奇，谁背叛了他的第一个妻子，但现在呈现两个价值观作为自己家族的候选人，被询问的外观是冬天的校园，他抨击了提问 。上周，使他的含糊声明，表示“任何广告的报价就是我说的是一个谎言星期天，”金里奇奇怪补充说，“这样我们可以有一个诚实的对话。”

为什么选民寻找候选人应选积极的迹象，以及为什么不应该的危险迹象。大约有超过傲慢的政客明确拒绝承认错误数的危险迹象。

照片，自上而下：美国国会众议员韦纳（个D - NY）的反应，他说，以出版社2011年6月，纽约6。代表安东尼韦纳承认周一派遣21岁，年度最佳女大学生在他的Twitter帐号已经这样做了，此前他是否认自己的猥亵照片到。路透社/布伦丹麦克德米德，前阿拉斯加州州长萨拉佩林（R）的迎接一名抗议者举着牌子写着“傻瓜女王”，她clambake在一抵达，2011年私人住宅在锡布鲁克，新罕布什尔州6月2日。路透社/布莱恩斯奈德

假设一个公司，是输给了其他公司的客户增加的价格，削减服务的反应，给予提高工人和买贵了管理。如果这家公司却要求一个豪华的政府救助，公众会笑。

我刚才所说的公司是美国邮政服务。

一个美国邮政的救助不是解决办法。炸毁邮政局 - 的垄断地位，其客户的BE -该死的态度，其终生制工作系统，保证无论性能 - 是解决方案。后的尘埃爆炸平息，该邮件将继续存在于一个更精简，可持续和更多的客户意识的形式。

美国邮政总局刚刚公布的22亿美元，第一季度亏损，尽管有联邦垄断从它的核心业务竞争免邮政局。从竞争豁免是美国邮政问题的核心，使该机构对现代拖动其脚跟，而执着的不良经营手法。

任何私人公司失去市场份额，因为美国邮政正在失去市场份额，电子邮件和包装，如联邦快递和UPS的服务，将通过降价作出回应，以吸引业务。经济学教科书说，降价，需求就会上升 - 这肯定为手机工作。提高价格，需求将会下降。 2006年以来， 美国邮政邮费增加百分之十三一流 -几乎两倍兴起的消费物价指数相同。另外，在此期间，邮件量下降百分之二十，在第一类邮件急剧下降。这不是一个冲击。这是经济学教科书！

在上一财年， 邮政署丢失八五〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇 〇美元 ，项目总损失达420亿元，2010年至2015年。尽管两次提高利率一流，在过去五年，邮政署已经向另一率增加。尽管有惊人的损失，美国邮政只是条文同意，裁员的主要联盟没有一个合同，包括加薪和一。 在这里 ， 商业周刊讲述更暗淡或尴尬美国邮政信息。

在香港邮政署长，该系统的首席执行官薪酬增长百分之四十2006至2010年。在2009财年中， 香港邮政署长本人支付80万美元的乡村俱乐部的会员，加上荒谬的津贴等。在新的邮政署署长收入仅为二十七点六〇 〇万美元 ，加上待遇。

这将是幽默，如果纳税人和邮件用户没有得到冤大头了。 在这里 ，2009年香港邮政署长宣布，由于国会的授权，他几乎没有权威。如果邮政署署长几乎没有权威，为什么高工资？聘请一名少年放学后到美国邮政运行。

有一件事始终没有正确的USPS，这是完全资助其养老金计划。法律，改变由政府部门，邮政署向准独立的实体要求，为使纳税人资助的联邦财产在全国各地的礼物回报 - 邮局房地产值得一包就是 - 美国邮政将包括自己的退休金。如果只有所有的州和当地政府部门和所有的企业，是诚实的关于充分资助其养老金的义务。

由于充分资金的养老金的一件事是不正确的USPS - 该机构要停止！邮件服务是要求国会退休金救助;特拉华州参议员汤姆卡珀缅因州和苏珊柯林斯，在参议院与美国邮政监管委员会资深成员，刚刚推出了一项法案，将在未来的纳税人的影响力，以支付美国邮政退休金成本。

因此，一个组织，是表现不佳，而免除责任通过无规则的下岗工人，想纳税人联邦接管其退休金成本，从而腾出美国邮政管理和工会更多的钱浪费自己。

这将是有趣的，如果一般人没有被层欺诈数。美国邮政总局希望这些钱不弹出的空气。这将来自尝试后信件或包裹，或从未来几代人的平均正与更多的养老金支出缠身。

创造更多资金没有着落的养老金费用的想法 - 当联邦，州和地方资金没有着落的养老金已是丑闻 - 是荒唐的。由于这个想法是荒谬的，但其好处一个特殊利益的一致性，自然美国国会很感兴趣。

唯一的解决办法是结束美国邮政邮件垄断：让私人的竞争进入了战斗，并让他们掩。

是的，这将不可避免地导致农村小邮局关闭，这将是一个悲哀的一天。但目前还没有马拉阶段教练于城市轿车停了，或者说，美国和农村得到的。它会得到通过与革新现代邮件服务了。

更正：两位参议员也有类似的产品与独立法案。这两个参议员的法案将精简美国邮政业务。双方将允许美国邮政总局，以减少其养老金的贡献，称美国邮政总局研究，建议预留储备，是不是需要更多的养老金。

作者注：也许是对的参议员，和USPS退休金供款可以安全地减少。不过这点最近的历史上并不乐观-许多国家，通用汽车公司和克莱斯勒汽车公司，削减他们的退休金供款，以及救助其次。

图文：美国邮政服务，2011年汽车导航中的暴风雨损坏的艾伯塔社区近29塔斯卡卢萨，阿拉巴马州，四月。路透社/马文金特里

“龙卷风是目前一个可怕的回升。”这可能是昨天写-写，但12年前，你的专栏作家，在1999年11月8日发行的新共和国 。

对龙卷风的冲击是不是有些突然，意外脱口而出的蓝色。我写了十几年前，因为1998年和1999年分别为约龙卷风龙卷风可怕。现在，在过去的三年有12对是可怕的龙卷风，而1950年至二零一零年趋势并非如此之大任 。

今年春天的活动已被可怕的龙卷风。至少有116人死于乔普林，密苏里州，上周日在一次不寻常的强大和大型龙卷风。塔斯卡卢萨部分的阿拉巴马州被摧毁了一个龙卷风的最后一个月。许多龙卷风袭击在四月奥沙克地区。共有875证实龙卷风在四月，去年4月高三倍于1974年的267。到目前为止，481人被杀害美国人今年春天的龙卷风。

在最近十年里，多普勒雷达在龙卷风多发地区的预警系统的安装已趋于减少死亡 - 警报器得到人们的重视。但即使是24分钟的警告，这在周日收到乔普林，可能不足以为龙卷风，这是一个难以相信半英里宽。 （龙卷风的一部分，触摸式很少超过100码宽。）更多令人不安的事实是这里的龙卷风 。

随机变化的天气模式包括：最近一些年来一直在为龙卷风温和。在此之前的春天，在美国史上最严重的龙卷风顺序排在1953年 ，当大气中温室气体含量低于今天。不过，我们有理由认为龙卷风是气候变化的先兆。

多年来，学者和政界人士声称，强大的飓风证明全球变暖。在这个2005年讲话 ，戈尔称，“科学界警告我们，平均飓风将继续得到加强，由于全球气候变暖。”戈尔接着比较飓风基地组织。但是，并非只有安静的四个五年大西洋飓风季节了，在20世纪无趋势上升的大西洋飓风频率和强度。

学者和政治家飓风附加意义，因为它们是视觉事件 - 飓风课程，可以预见，他们的人数在岸上电视转播。龙卷风来来去去的那么快，他们几乎不可能赶上电影。但他们的送往迎来可能是气候故障警告。

什么是龙卷风造成了2011年海啸？今年春天，急流已转向南部和东部的典型位置。这就需要把更多的接触与温暖，其南缘约在墨西哥海湾，寒冷潮湿气团，在急流北缘干燥的空气。其结果是旋转雷暴 - 有时，如发生在奥沙克在四月后相继形成日复一日。

当然也有过去的时候急流转向东面和南面：这可能是也可能不是相关的温室气体。但在大气中温室气体水平在上升，天气变化正在上升 - 不仅仅是龙卷风，干旱和洪水，但降雨。机会是二加二等于四。

重要的是要牢记，气候变化，而不是全球变暖，是威胁。他们似乎喜欢同样的事情，但都没有。

对过去100年气候变暖温和 - 大约华氏1度全球平均 - 是对作物产量良好，并主持的能源需求。 （电源寒冷天气变暖对使用超过了在热天的制冷功率使用）。如果发生的事情是继续温和气温上升，这可能是有益的。

气候变化是另外一回事。气候变化可能带来一些地方更龙卷风，旱灾增加而增加其他地方洪水 - 所有这三个影响得到遵守。降雨模式的长期变化可能会变成作物故障地区的粮仓地区。我们日益全球化的经济是航空旅行和航空货运依赖。如果风暴和动荡开始作飞行条件不利不只一次在很长一段时间，但往往？

尽管谈论什么类型的电台和茶党说，有强大的科学共识是，人类活动已开始改变地球的气候。这是事情的最新声明一周，从国家科学研究院的最后一次。

美国国会 - 致力于无所作为的双重目标，同时收集竞选捐款 - 需要采取行动的温室气体。这些龙卷风是不是源于奥兹。

图文：地震毁坏了房屋和汽车被视为一个毁灭性的龙卷风袭击后，乔普林，密苏里州2011年5月24日。一个龙卷风丧生的小怪物中西部城市至少116人在乔普林，心，而它撕开了，撕一医院的屋顶上千家企业关闭和破坏的家园和。路透社/埃里克塞耶

汽油是每加仑4美元以上，以优惠的价格使美国人认为末日快到了。总统奥巴马希望石油工业放弃额仅为每年2亿美元的税收优惠，以及大石油公司首席执行官只是告诉国会，这是不可能的。 （ 手表公司首席执行官一些世界上最富有的哭哭穷此处 ）。

页岩气巨额被发现在美国 ，但不提取的气体污染地下水 ？在最近的一次演讲中，奥巴马是美国只是对所有的前期计划“能源独立”是政治热空气 。而对于zillionth连续两年，国会应该制定一项全面的国家能源政策，而是出现在马贸易的补贴和救助重点。

是否有什么正在无尽的能源辩论错过了什么？

是的 - 甲烷排放量。甲烷是一种比二氧化碳更严重的温室气体。甲烷可能是没有经济风险的监管，减少了人为温室效应和购买社会上的额外时间十年或二十年研究的方法来控制其他温室气体。

正在做什么，而不是关于甲烷排放量。这是一个没有界别孤儿问题 - 问题是要变得更糟。

主要的人造温室气体，二氧化碳，主要是燃烧煤和石油的副产品，以及毁林。这是二氧化碳积累，最担心的气候变化研究人员。虽然二氧化碳可能不会像许多难以承担，以解决技术，电流，任何碳排放量将严格的调控，对经济损害的风险。

甲烷，天然气的钻探副产品和水稻种植，20倍，且比二氧化碳作为一种温室气体有力。这意味着，邦中甲烷调控，在降压要比碳规定的更好。这个由美国航天局的詹姆斯汉森最近的一次演讲中，领先的学术辩论全球变暖在左边的，说明有更多的甲烷调控短期减缓气候变化的潜力确实比碳规定。

而这里的调节甲烷之美 - 就没有经济的伤害。以现有技术，汽车和卡车需要烧油，发电厂需要燃烧煤炭，这使一些碳排放量是不可避免的。甲烷排放多种形式，相比之下，没有任何可以停止国内生产总值减少。从天然气钻井瓦斯泄漏，例如，不为任何经济目的。然而，甲烷排放量基本上是在美国不受监管。

本文 由康奈尔大学的罗伯特豪沃思认为，在天然气产量从目前的繁荣将页岩地层产生适得其反的效果释放到空气中大量的甲烷。天然气作为清洁燃料推广：但是如果页岩气钻井造成更多的甲烷排放，全球变暖可能加速。 （甲烷是天然气中经常发现单位;两个相似但不完全相同的燃料，自然的气可取，因为，一反对豪沃思计算在这里 。）

这种优秀的文章由Jesse兹维克在华盛顿月刊认为，“有已经被证明的方式来捕捉和工业用天然气生产甲烷。但是，直到这是必需的，它很难使案件，天然气产量，较燃煤巨大的改进。“

布什和奥巴马在发言含糊的有关国际努力，以减少甲烷排放量，但没有任何具体的事情发生。为什么呢？

其中一个原因是，大气中甲烷的威胁是不可见的。只要存在着根深蒂固的利益集团，当代美国政治制度似乎面临的突出问题，甚至完全可以说，无形无能力。这里的利益集团是石油和天然气公司，但不希望有利于调节税。一年又一年里，能源公司的政治捐款，在关键​​问题上购买国会的沉默。

另一个原因是，甲烷去忽视环保主义者要归咎于全球变暖，美国一帧的关注。由于美国的能源经济是煤和石油依赖，美国的二氧化碳排放量高​​。由于欧洲的能源经济是依赖于天然气，甲烷排放量高的欧洲。通过保持对全球变暖的二氧化碳的重点，enviros保持手指在美国指出。

当我们进入另一个华盛顿愚蠢赛季在能源政策 - 在白宫和国会大谈变化，然后更新所有现有的私下交易 - 这是必须采取措施来减少甲烷排放量。保持甲烷的空气污染，是从最后剩下的为减缓气候变化容易解决。

2003年，美国入侵伊拉克的理由两个理由：为推翻萨达姆侯赛因，并摧毁伊拉克的违禁武器计划。在一年之内，侯赛因和他的同伙被监禁，并已发现有没有伊拉克违禁武器的计划。已实现其目标，为什么不离开美国？七年后，这个问题困扰着美国对伊拉克的占领。

2001年，美国入侵阿富汗，理由是两个理由：找到乌萨马本拉丹，并屡屡打破了基地组织。本拉丹现在是死了，'基地'组织破坏。

那么，为什么美国不走？

秋季，美军将在阿富汗已经花了整整十年 - 进行巡逻，轰炸的令人发指，轰炸无辜的。美国大约有10万阿富汗士兵和机组人员在空中，几乎只要在伊拉克的高峰迫使许多。美国在阿富汗的存在制约了塔利班，塔利班是一个可怕的小组。但塔利班是一个问题困扰着中亚阿富汗和巴基斯坦 - 他们的存在不以任何方式危及美国的国家利益。

已履行其在阿富汗的目标，为什么不离开美国？

马克斯引导，另一名外交关系委员会，写在华尔街日报表示 ，“自9月11日，基地组织一直没有时间打战士在阿富汗境内的任何一个超过几个。”引导是一个强硬派-他支持阿富汗战争，冲突是在2003年书的作者水平野蛮战争和平低，一个活泼的国防超级大国的参与。引导还认为，有比其他人在阿富汗的基地组织恐怖组织。

但随着本拉丹死了，怎么会“几十个战士”乐队及其他刑事辩护保持10万名美国军事人员和40000个人在阿富汗的北约军事，？对齐持续违反阿富汗的主权？美国从来没有宣布对阿富汗的战争 - 我们只是攻击。

最重要的是， 美国如何才能有理由继续杀死阿富汗平民 ？美国和北约部队可能没有想杀死阿富汗平民。对死者，这一切都一样。

之后，基地组织对美国的袭击，美国对阿富汗的反击可以合理化为自卫。与本拉登死了，这个理由消失了。如果认为任何港口散坏人带应以国家侵略和有条不紊的美国轰炸太疯狂了。

因此，与拉登消失了 - 我们为什么不离开阿富汗？

当奥巴马就任总统后，美国有大约70,000名士兵和机组人员在阿富汗的空气。奥巴马承诺在阿富汗“增兵”，这提高了部队的水平，将结束在2011年夏天。因此，即使本拉丹被打死之前，美军预计将离开阿富汗各地开始了。相反，白宫和国防部都表示将在阿富汗的作战部队仍然可能到2014年。

这将是14年的占领 - 成千上万的美国人死亡，数以万计的阿富汗人死亡 - 为了完成什么？为了证明美国的肌肉伸缩，并推迟西方势力的时刻留在阿富汗的条件比他们差找到它。与拉登死了，时间已经到了结束美国在阿富汗的军事冒险主义 - 美国军队可以在地面上，甚至有形容他们现在争取？ - 阿富汗重建开始。

接下来是几个音符拉登袭击就完事 ，您的专栏作家认为这是道德和捍卫我在这里对英国广播公司：

这些“隐形直升机。”雷达规避-这是一个值得商榷的直升机-拥有的很少，如果有的话，与他们的使用。两个黑色的老鹰用隐形功能，由两个支奴干落后，飞向拉登的化合物。该奇努克 ，上世纪60年代设计的，没有隐身功能：在雷达屏幕上，它看起来像一个谷仓飞行。因此，该支奴干的存在将出卖的隐形直升机，雷达操作员。

为“隐形”直升机的原因是它们使低于标准旋翼飞机的噪音，协助惊奇的元素。没有直升机很安静：在巴基斯坦媒体报道阿伯塔巴德人离开他们的房子，看看所有的直升机噪音。 “隐形”直升机只是响亮，而不是震耳欲聋。还具有红外隐身黑鹰屏蔽，巴基斯坦部队开火的情况下寻热导弹，并没有发生。

巴基斯坦军方没有回应40资本？一个原因分钟的空袭是， 为什么附近的白军是不完全是一个良好的油机：俄罗斯舰队在1905年接近对马海峡是正确的比喻。这是值得思考的时候思考，巴基斯坦的军队必须保护原子弹。另一个原因是，巴基斯坦的国防网点东往印度。走近攻略从西，从阿富汗。

它也可能是因为美国是“欺骗”巴基斯坦雷达和通讯：没有“干扰”造成的突击直升机消失电子，（生产静态和系统故障），这将宣布一些不寻常的事情发生。不要感到惊讶，如果事实证明一个或多个美国的电子战飞机在巴基斯坦领空这天晚上，欺骗伊斯兰堡的国家安全网。也不要感到惊讶，如果事实证明，美国的地面攻击机，包括这个全副武装的飞机 ，专门就推进消防战士，在上述情况下袭击了巴基斯坦南部。

为什么没有了V - 22使用？五角大楼已经花了黑鹰直升机至少三百点〇 〇亿美元在V - 22倾转旋翼更先进，这是较新和。采用V - 22是专为像宾拉登袭击任务剖面 - 粉煤灰在两倍于直升机，陆地速度通过长途敌对领空，并采取了像直升机，直升机飞行速度的两倍了。然而，在V - 22没有使用。虽然业务自2007年以来，在V - 22从未被雇用附近的伊拉克和阿富汗的敌对势力。

这架飞机已在测试中的安全纪录不佳，并一直由国防部长罗伯特盖茨引为采购浪费的例子。如果不是本拉丹袭击的权利，在V - 22将永远是正确的。无论是对V - 22使用缺乏跨服务的最愚蠢的一种竞争（海豹突击队上演的使命，在V - 22是由海军陆战队和空军的操作），或在V - 22是一种非常昂贵的哑弹，需要被取消之前，更多的是纳税人的钱浪费了。

照片，从上到下：农民Jalaluddin，70，进行2011年蔬菜收获过去，该化合物在美国海军海豹突击队基地组织头目本拉登据说打死阿伯塔巴德5月5日。巴基斯坦，显然是指老对手印度周四表示，任何国家试图袭击其军事领域的方式，美国军队也杀了本拉丹将面临后果。路透社/阿赫塔尔Soomro;直升机部分受损的是看到躺在附近的化合物后，美国海军海豹突击队杀害阿伯塔巴德，2011年5月2日基地组织头目本拉丹英寸路透社/斯特林格

最近，我是一个在英国广播公司世界服务客户，以讨论是否杀害了乌萨马本拉丹可称为“正义”。BBC的播客是在这里 。我路透社主题栏上的是在这里 。

Should the United States have invaded Iraq? Should the United States be bombing Libya? These are troubling questions. But there is no question the United States had a right to kill Osama bin Laden — and no doubt his death is good news, including for the world's Muslims, most of whom are law-abiding and peace-loving.

Bin Laden led an organization that attacked civilians in the United States and several other nations. Under international law, under all ethical and most religious reasoning, the United States had a clear right of self-defense regarding bin Laden and al Qaeda. Pakistani national sovereignty may have been violated, which is an issue for Washington and Islamabad to work out. But the killing itself was self-defense. No serious person — and no school of thought — should object.

Some time may pass before important details are known. From initial reports, these thoughts come to mind:

The raid was honorable. Bombers could have dropped GPS-guided bombs from 50,000 feet, without any American being in danger. But that might have killed many bystanders, and the world would never have been sure who was under the rubble. By sending commandos in for a face-to-face fight, the United States chose the tactics that would limit Pakistani casualties, and be sure US soldiers were shooting at the right person.

We may never know the identities of the special force members on the raid. They did the honorable thing — risking their own lives to spare bystanders.

Killing, rather than capture, was correct. There existed no doubt about bin Laden's guilt, since he himself regularly proclaimed it. Killing him — Reuters is reporting the commandos were ordered to kill, not capture — avoided a trial that could have been a terrorism trigger. Plus, huge amounts of money would have been spent guarding a captured bin Laden. Better to spend the money building schools in Afghanistan.

His followers' personal vow is now broken. One reason Nazi Germany refused to surrender long past the point its position was hopeless was that Wehrmacht members took an oath of allegiance not to German patriotism but to Hitler personally. Until Hitler was dead, many German military personnel felt duty-bound to honor their vows even if that meant following the orders of an obvious madman. As soon as Hitler was gone, the oaths dissolved and German forces surrendered.

Al Qaeda members take oaths not to any nation or any vision, but to bin Laden personally. Now he's gone. True, some al Qaeda members may vow obedience to some new murderer. But others, released from their oaths, may leave al Qaeda.

Surely the United States did not tell Pakistan this was about to happen. Though bin Laden is hated by many in Pakistan's government — al Qaeda has killed more Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan than Christians and Jews in the United States — there are also fanatics in Pakistani intelligence.

As described by Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower , they warned bin Laden about the 1998 American attempt against him. Likely they would have warned bin Laden again.

Pakistani intelligence officials now look like dolts. Bin Laden was directly under their noses — in a pleasant “hill station” town favored by wealthy Pakistani generals and retired military and “just a few hundred meters from Pakistan's version of the West Point military academy “. Yet Pakistani intelligence either was too dull-witted to notice, or corrupt and knew and said nothing. Had Pakistan brought bin Laden to justice without the help of the US, Islamabad would now seem super-competent, and be winning the world's praise. Instead, Islamabad seems like a ship of fools.

This killing is irrelevant to the targeted-assassination debate. A few days ago, the United States tried to kill Muammar Gaddafi, using bombs. US law forbids the targeted killing of heads of state, making the US airstrike troubling on many levels: among them that American law makes it legal to kill the innocent when bombs miss, so long as no named individual was targeted. That's tormented ethics, to put it mildly.

But bin Laden was not a head of state, he was a stateless criminal and an obvious threat to the lives of others. There's no legal concern here.

Was the raid truly perfect? President Obama's declaration that US commandos “took care to avoid civilian casualties” could mean many things. The White House should clarify immediately.

The correspondents dinner. Saturday night, Obama was yukking it up at the White House Correspondents Dinner — knowing the raid was about to happen, and the situation for America was about to get either a lot better or a lot worse. The president smiled his way through the dinner (arguably the single most ridiculous aspect of contemporary Washington politics), giving no hint. That's Academy Award acting.

There were no leaks. Nobody in the White House, the Department of Defense or the intelligence community leaked anything. State Department personnel were evacuated from Peshawar in the hours before the raid, and not one of them texted or tweeted the slightest hint. America really can do something properly!

At this time, no one should think of politics. But President Obama can be forgiven for knowing that his reelection odds just skyrocketed.

Only the Pope guest-hosting Saturday Night Live could top, in public-relations terms, what just happened in Washington — Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a press conference, the first time a Fed chair has stood before reporters to take questions. And maybe Benedict XVI should film an Internet intro to St. Peter's, since Bernanke just posted an intro to the Vatican of money .

And what a press conference! It began exactly on time. The mood was sedate, the questions softly spoken and polite. Bernanke didn't take the bait when a reporter asked what he thought of “many economists” calling Fed policy ineffective; there was no snarky follow-up. Recent presidents could only dream of presiding over such a respectful press conference.

Traditionally, Fed chairs have spoken in public only to read a prepared speech — often, cloaked in mumbo-jumbo — or to present congressional testimony. Fed chairmen's appearances before congressional committees have tended to be dominated by representatives and senators who want to hold the floor, and the cameras' attention, as they engage in long-winded self-flattery. Sharp, concise questions of the sort asked by reporters are rare in congressional hearings.

Otherwise, Fed chairmen have cultivated an aura of secrecy, so much so that William Grieder's 1989 book about the Fed was titled, “ Secrets of the Temple “. Some believe that Fed chairmen cultivate a secretive air in order to mystify themselves; or because a high-and-mighty atmosphere helps the Fed function properly; or because they fear slipping up and revealing that they are not the super-ultra geniuses they'd like us to believe.

Now Bernanke is raising some of the curtain. Maybe he simply believes the Fed should be more accountable to the public — if so, more power to him. Asked today about ambiguity in Fed pronouncements, Bernanke replied, “the reason we use vague terminology is that we don't know” what will happen next in the economy. He followed up later by saying he simply doesn't know when “tightening” will occur because he doesn't know what course the economy will take. He said “everybody who reads the newspapers” knows about the same information the Fed knows. This is admirable honesty from an institution with a tradition of pretending to be oracular.

Maybe Bernanke is raising the curtain because he fears the Federal Reserve being blamed for a role in Washington's breathtaking borrowed-money giveaway, as enabler of the $14 trillion — and counting — national debt.

The Fed has engaged in $1.7 trillion of printing money in the last two years, insisting on the euphemism “quantitative easing.” Since the Washington red-ink tide began in 2008, the Federal Reserve has kept the federal funds rate to banks “exceptionally low,” in Bernanke's words, below 1 percent. Banks borrow from the Fed at nominal charge and use the funds to purchase Treasury bills — providing effortless profit to banks, while giving the federal government dollars to spend that appear to come from private sources but actually are money-printing by the Fed. When Bernanke referred today to the Fed's “highly accommodative monetary policy,” this is what he meant.

Inflation almost has to result. Indeed, Bernanke said today the Fed worries about deflation and does not want inflation at zero, rather, at a “goal” of about 2 percent. Imagine telling Paul Volcker in the early 1980s that the Fed was worried about reaching a goal of causing more inflation! Bernanke in December 2009 said it was “very unlikely” the Fed's printing-money policy would cause inflation; the Fed reiterated this belief today , in advance of Bernanke's press conference.

But though low inflation is wonderful — inflation hurts the average person far more than does slow growth — it's hard to believe all this borrowing and money-printing won't cause inflation to spiral out of hand. “To get a long-term, sustainable recovery, we've got to keep inflation under control,” Bernanke said today.

David Einhorn, among Wall Street's most accomplished shorts, thinks inflation has already begun , but is being understated by federal formulas — because Washington so badly needs the Fed to keep providing nearly interest-free money. Bad as the federal deficit is now, bear in mind that even modest inflation would add $500 billion or so annually to debt-service cost on the national debt, while triggering big increases in Social Security benefits.

Probably Bernanke's “very accommodative” monetary policy helped soften the recent recession; surely it pleased George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Bernanke's patrons, allowing them to spend lavishly without accountability. But will there be harsh costs, as inflation and other problems, that won't manifest until current Washington policymakers leave their posts?

After all, the Federal Reserve has resorted to emergency measures — an extended period of extremely loose money — when the national economic condition is nowhere near as bad as it's been in the past, and when global economic fundamentals are sound (no resource shortages, no superpower conflicts, tariffs and trade barriers in decline).

If years of really loose money — almost unlimited free money to Washington and the big banks — is needed to keep the economy growing when overall conditions are positive, what arrow is left in the quiver if a genuine emergency occurs?

The Fed can't cut interest rates any lower, doesn't dare print any more money — it said as much today — and couldn't be taking any greater chances with the future. The arrows have been shot and the quiver is empty. Let's hope no genuine emergency occurs.

At least we finally have a Federal Reserve chairman willing to explain himself to the public.

Photo: US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke takes his seat prior to his first-ever news conference following a Fed meeting at the Federal Reserve in Washington April 27, 2011. The Federal Reserve signaled Wednesday it is in no rush to scale back its extensive support for the US economy, while slightly downgrading its view of the economy's recent performance. REUTERS/Jason Reed

President Barack Obama wants to increase taxes on the wealthy, and surely is correct that this must be part of any serious plan to control the national debt. Consider the case of a wealthy couple who made $1.7 million in 2010, yet paid only 26.2 percent in federal income taxes — though the top rate supposedly is 35 percent, and the president says that figure should rise to 39.6 percent. The well-off couple in question is Barack and Michelle Obama, whose tax returns , just released, show they paid substantially less than the president says others should pay.

If Obama is in earnest about wanting increased taxes on the wealthy, then he should send the United States Treasury $182,998. That's the difference between his Form 1040 Line 60 (“This is your total tax”) and what he would have owed at the higher rate (plus limits on itemized deductions) he himself advocates.

So why doesn't he tax himself more? The Form 1040, after all, only stipulates the minimum tax an American must pay. More is always welcome. Obama should write a check to the United States Treasury for $182,998.

Wealthy people who say the rich should pay higher taxes — Bill Gates and Warren Buffett have joined Obama in declaring this — are free to tax themselves. If you believe the top rate should rise to 39.6 percent (Obama) or 50 percent (Buffett), then calculate the difference and send a check for that amount to the Treasury. Of course no one individual doing this, even a billionaire, would have much impact on the deficit. But if rich people who say they believe in higher taxes were willing to practice what they preach, this would prove their sincerity, making legislation on the point more likely.

“The most fortunate among us can afford to pay a little more,” President Obama said last week about debt and taxes . So why didn't he? The president is covered by his own definition of “fortunate,” since his proposal calls for higher taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000.

Compared to the tax returns of the rich generally, the president and First Lady look good. They gave $245,000 to charity in 2010, or 14 percent of their income — admirable generosity, and a better number than posted by most recent presidents and vice-presidents.

Figures from the Internal Revenue Service show that in 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the wealthy paid only about 17 percent of their income in federal taxes — less than the president's 26 percent in 2010, and much less than the official top rate of 35 percent for the bulk of a well-off filer's income.

That the wealthy as a group are paying 17 percent of their income as federal income taxes, down from 26 percent from the wealthy as a group in 1992, is a result of the tax cuts enacted under George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003, and extended under Obama last year.

The slashing of taxes for the wealthy is well-known — but Bush's cut reduced taxes for typical people, too. The lower part of the rate structure is now so low that in 2008, 45 percent of American households paid no federal income taxes at all, according to the Tax Policy Center . Americans as a whole paid an average of just 9.2 percent of their income as federal income taxes.

Both figures are postwar lows. The Tea Party claim that federal taxes are rising is, simply, factually untrue.

Falling taxes for average people have played as much a role in the ballooning federal debt as have falling taxes for the rich. In turn, soaking the rich cannot, alone, tame the national-debt monster.

Calculations based on IRS figures suggest — only rough estimates are possible, as tax laws can change economic behavior — that raising the amount of income actually paid as taxes by the rich from the current 17 percent to 26 percent, what the Obamas paid, would bring in about $200 billion a year in fresh federal revenues. Increasing the figure to about 30 percent (likely actual result of the tax changes Obama advocates) would raise the new-revenue total to about $300 billion annually.

Such amounts would ease the deficit, but hardly represent a cure — government red ink is projected to hit $1.6 trillion this fiscal year. There simply isn'ta long-term deficit solution based only on taxing the rich. Social Security benefit cuts, and more taxes on the middle class, will be needed too.

Sustained 5-to-6 percent GDP growth would solve the deficit problem painlessly, by raising revenue without tax increases or Social Security cuts. While such growth, roughly double the current number, is possible, it seems unlikely.

Though tax increases alone cannot put the country's fiscal house in order, the president should set a better example on his own tax returns.

That $245,000 the Obamas gave to charity, for example — deducting it on their Schedule A reduced their federal tax bill by roughly $85,000, and cut their Illinois state tax bill too. But you're not required to deduct charitable giving, or to claim any tax favor. Deductions and tax credits are options. If you think the government deserves more of your income, don't claim them.

Obama said last year that itemized deductions for the wealthy should be phased out — then on his own tax return, claimed a huge itemized deduction. Until those who advocate higher taxes for the well-off practice what they preach, the national debt situation may only get worse.

The budget compromise that averted a federal government shutdown nearly foundered upon the rocks of Republican riders, one of which would have stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of authority to regulate greenhouse gases. Speaking as someone who favors greenhouse restrictions, I wish the Republican rider — dropped just before the clock struck midnight — had succeeded.

The EPA is trying to restrict greenhouse gases using a 41-year-old statute intended for another purpose. Republicans are right to object to this.

Of course, most Republicans don't want any greenhouse gas regulation at all — though greenhouse regulation is now justified by a strong body of science , including by statements from George W. Bush's Climate Change Science Program . Greenhouse regulation probably will not cost anywhere near as much as current estimates. All previous programs to control air emissions have proven significantly cheaper than expected . Republicans are correct, though, that the EPA is going about this in the wrong way.

Only a global warming program enacted by Congress will have political validity. A backdoor attempt — federal bureaucrats using strained interpretations of old laws, leading to solutions imposed by judges — will be illegitimate in the eyes of voters. Americans are sick of bureaucrats and judges trying to dictate policy. Laws passed by Congress, on the other hand, clearly are legitimate politically. You may not like any particular law passed by Congress — but that's where the Constitution vests the power in our system.

Thus Congress must speak on greenhouse gases. Backdoor bureaucratic attempts will only discredit climate change action.

Here's the fast-forward version of the current EPA controversy:

The Clean Air Act of 1970 regulates pollutants that cause smog and acid rain. The Act has been a spectacular success: smog and acid rain have declined rapidly , without harm to the economy. Indeed, the economy has mainly boomed since smog and acid rain rules became stricter; an improving natural environment may be a cause of economic growth. The Clean Air Act has strong political legitimacy, because Congress clearly spelled out the specific compounds that were to be restricted.

Congress has never enacted any regulation of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas. Frustrated, advocates proposed that the Clean Air Act be used. It contains a clause saying the EPA may impose rules on gases not named in the statute, if they are found to “endanger public health or welfare.”

Do greenhouse gases threaten “public health or welfare?” Saying they threaten public health is quite a stretch — there is no evidence of this in the United States, though it might be happening in equatorial nations . Perhaps they threaten public “welfare,” since that term is amorphous. But considering the general welfare of the United States has steadily improved during the postwar period, even as greenhouse gas accumulation has risen, this one vague word seems hardly sufficient to hang a broad regulatory authority on.

In 2003 the EPA, under Bush, declared that the health-or-welfare clause of the Clean Air Act did not apply to greenhouse gases. Massachusetts sued, and in 2006 the Supreme Court said this . Totally obvious what the decision means, right? Like many recent Supreme Court opinions, the justices' decision could scarcely be understood by monks standing on their heads in a monastery.

Many politicians and pundits, to quote former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, said the Supreme Court “ordered the EPA to impose greenhouse gas regulations.” The decision did not. Rather, the court found the EPA was wrong to assert that it could not regulate greenhouse gases. Get the maddening double negative? The Supremes weren't definitive on whether the EPA has authority: rather, they told the EPA to go back to the drawing board and articulate a “reasonable basis” for deciding one way or the other.

When Barack Obama, who favors greenhouse rules, was elected, senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman put together a Senate bill. It failed, and that's good — the Kerry-Lieberman global warming bill was a nightmarish mélange of top-down controls, special exemptions and giveaways to campaign donors. (Here's the 987-page “discussion draft” ). Knowing the bill was goin' nowhere even when Democrats controlled the House, Obama's EPA reversed Bush's EPA and declared that the Clean Air Act can be used to regulate greenhouse gases .

That brings us to the present. Two weeks ago, the Republican-controlled House voted to amend the Clean Air Act, to clarify that it does not apply to greenhouse gases. The Democratic-controlled Senate would not match. Then the Tea Party took the issue to the budget showdown, without success. Now it's settled?几乎没有。 There's no guarantee the EPA's pro-regulatory finding will amuse the Supreme Court any more than its anti-regulatory finding did. Additional litigation seems assured.

This tussle has brought out absurd degrees of exaggeration from theologians of both extremes. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, representing the Church of the Perpetual Denunciation, declared that having no regulation of greenhouse gases would trigger “growth and job creation”. Wait, there was already no regulation of greenhouse gases during the recession!

Paul Krugman, representing the New Jersey Synod of the Latter-Day Limousine Liberals, ridiculed the mere suggestion that steady improvement of public health during the era of greenhouse accumulation shows greenhouse gases don't harm public health . Wait, that makes sense! It's 2011, must the left still shout down its critics rather than engage their arguments?

Bottom line: all three branches of the federal system (legislative, executive and judicial) have spent eight years arguing about the meaning of a single sentence in an statute. And we're still not sure what the sentence means.

Solution: ditch the EPA's backdoor regulatory attempt, then enact legislation to reduce greenhouse gases. Such legislation would have political legitimacy; could be simple and practical; and can be conservative!

In 1992, Martin Feldstein, who had been Ronald Reagan's chief economist, proposed that greenhouse gases be reduced via a carbon tax. In 2007, Gregory Mankiw, who had been George W. Bush's chief economist, proposed the same . Rather than impose some super-complex regulatory scheme with decisions made in Washington, a carbon tax would allow individuals and businesses to make their own decisions about carbon dioxide reduction — while creating a profit incentive to invent low-cost control technology. That's why conservative economists like the idea.

The national-debt monster is looming: why not combat it with a tax on air pollution? That's preferable to higher taxes on income or corporate profits. Taxing income and profit only discourages labor and capital, both of which are good. Taxing pollution would discourage pollution — while helping balance the books.

So Tea Party, I hope you succeed in stripping the EPA of Clean Air Act-based authority regarding global warming. Then enact the reform the country needs: a carbon tax, to reduce the deficit and protect the climate.