might suppose that the admiral was involvedrnin the offense, were it not for thernsubhead, “Pacific chief criticized forrncomment on case.” Criticism is a mildrnword indeed for action that deprives arnman of the career and honors for whichrnhe had faithfully served and labored forrnmore than three decades. Exactly whatrnwas the offense in the admiral’s comment,rn”For the price they paid to rent therncar, they could have had a girl”? Thernever vigilant feminist, CongresswomanrnPatricia Schroeder (Democrat-CO),rnperhaps still savoring the memory of herrnsuccessful attacks on Admiral Kelso,rncalled it “the biggest outrage I’ve seen inrna while.” (That’s a comforting thought,rnin a wav.) According to the New YorkrnTimes, Congresswoman Schroeder faultedrnthe admiral for thinking that “Boysrnwill be boys, the view that women arcrnjust commodities.” Did the admiral sayrnany such thing? Does Miss Schroederrnknow what he thinks about women?rnWhat he said was truthful; it was necessaryrnto condemn him, to jump to thernconclusion that the admiral was notrnmerely noting that in this fallen world,rnsome women present themselves asrncommodities, whether of their own willrnor because they are pressured bv exploitersrninto doing so. No one askedrnwhether the admiral thinks that theyrnought to be treated as such. It was onlyrnone little “bite,” but it bit. The merernstatement of what is in fact a truth, althoughrna deplorable one, gave the obsequiousrnMr. Perry the opportunity tornhumble another meritorious militaryrnleader. Does Admiral Maeke deplore therntvpe of world that causes prostitutes tornsurround military bases? We would notrnknow. It’s not important. What was importantrnwas the bite.rnUnder such circumstances, when thernpique of a certain elite can destroy thernwork of a man’s entire life, what kind ofrnman will aspire to rise through the ranksrnof the armed service in the future? Onlyrnthe kind of man who is prudent enough,rnor delicately sensitive enough to avoid violatingrneven the least commandment ofrnthe Tables of the Law of Political Correctness,rncan have any hope of reaching arnhigh post, or of staying in it if he shouldrnreach it. The late Bertrand de Jouvenel,rnin his incisive work On Power, indicatesrnthat the future of Western democraciesrnwill be domination by effeminate totalitarians.rnIs there not one man in governmentrnwho is willing to say, “Enough of thisrnnonsense!”? Evidently not. The highestrnofficials will not, and their subordinatesrndare not, as the fate of Admiral Kelso andrnnow Maeke reveals. The problem liesrnless with vindictive and tyrannical feminismrnof the sort exemplified by CongresswomanrnSchroeder than with thernsupine pusillanimity, effeminate supersensibility,rnand total lack of human realismrnand ordinary common sense illustratedrnbv leaders whose concept ofrnleadership seems limited to a determinationrnto float with the politically correctrntide.rn—Harold O.J. BrownrnMICHAEL NEW, the 22-year-oidrnArmy medic who faces a bad conductrndischarge for refusing to wear the UnitedrnNations uniform, may well lose his fightrnto clear his record. He was court-martialedrnand convicted in January, and itrnseems unlikely the Army court will reversernthat decision. At issue is his refusalrnto wear the powder-blue U.N. beret andrnpatch, as ordered. Other soldiers beforernhim have been out of uniform, and thernArmed Forces have prosecuted some ofrnthem. But only now has a young Texanrnbeen found out of uniform because hernwas wearing the American uniform.rnEven the Army’s own lawyers havernconceded, in a stipulation of fact datedrnJanuary 9, 1996, that “The United Nationsrninsignia and accouterments. . . hasrn[sic] not been approved . . . as requiredrnand mandated under the provisions ofrn. . . Army Regulation 670-1, ‘Wear andrnAppearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia.'”rnThe Army’s argument is that arndirect order from a superior officer,rnwhose ultimate authority comes fromrnBill Clinton’s presidential order, supersedesrnthese regulations.rnMichael New’s fellow enlistees in 1strnBattalion, 15th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Divisionrnare now in Macedonia carryingrnU.N. identity cards (they are permittedrnto carry their American identification,rnbut are only required to carry the U.N.rncard). Even more importantly, whilernArmy spokesman Mike Doubleday told arnWashington Post reporter that “The U.N.rnhas operational control, but never command”rnof these American forces, thernU.N. commander sees it differently.rnBrigadier General Juha Engstom (arnFinn) told the Armv newspaper thernMarneland Crusader in November that,rn”This is a very unique and historic opportunity.rnBefore Macedonia, a non-rnAmerican or non-NATO officer has neverrnbefore had command of an Americanrnbattalion abroad, so this is really a challengingrnjob and I like it very much.”rnIt is that issue of command—forrnwhich the uniform is symbolic—that hasrninterested and angered so many Americans.rnAccording to New’s pro bono leadrnattorney, former Marine Colonel RonrnRay, he and New’s father have been invitedrnto discuss the case on hundreds ofrnradio talk shows. (Ray has counseledrnMichael New himself not to talk to thernpress, while New is still enlisted.) Rayrnsays he has received 14,000 letters, all butrna handful in support of New, and thatrnthe Michael New Defense Fund (P.O.rnBox 1136, Crestwood, KY 40014) hadrnraised $150,000 as of March.rnIn the Capitol, New has some strongrnsupport in the House, especially fromrnRepresentatives Roseoe Bartlett of Maryland,rnTom DeLay of Texas, and JamesrnTrafieant of Ohio. And according tornRay, Representative Robert Dornan ofrnCalifornia will hold hearings this spring.rnNew has had less luck in the Senate.rnSenator Phil Gramm of Texas, New’srnown senator and a man who has earnedrnstanding ovations for vowing that neitherrnhis sons nor any other American’s willrnfight under U.N. command, has yet torndo anything to help him.rnBy refusing to wear the U.N. beret,rnMichael New has raised questions aboutrnthe legality of donning a foreign uniform,rnthe status of an American enlisteernserving under foreign command, and thernlegitimacy of the war powers PresidentrnClinton has assumed. These are questionsrnthat Congress must finally answerrn—and if we are lucky, with somethingrnother than silence.rn—Katherine DaltonrnOBITER DICTA: In our January issue,rnJ. Philippe Rushton published hisrncontroversial findings on the correlationrnbetween “Race, AIDS, and Sexual Behavior.”rnNow, confirming ProfessorrnRushton’s findings, the World HealthrnOrganization reports that of the estimatedrn17 million adults who carry therndisease, the vast majority—66 percent—rnlive in sub-Saharan Africa, with Caribbeanrncountries contributing most of thernother cases (in tiny Haiti, 150,000 peoplernhave AIDS). As Professor Rushton concludes,rn”The virus must be considered asrnendemic in black populations throughoutrnthe world.”rnMAY 1996/7rnrnrn