“I think that is a terrible metaphor and I think that is a terrible concept,” said Howard Schmidt, the new cybersecurity czar for the Obama administration.

Sarah Palin has endorsed Carly Fiorina for U.S. Senate in California, showing commendable charity toward a woman who gave her one of her many Bad Headline Days in September 2008 by telling an interviewer that Palin wouldn’t be qualified to run a major company. (Fiorina did add, “But you know what? That’s not what she’s running for.”)

Palin is way off base, though, when she writes:

I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate.

Ignoring conservative Chuck DeVore, who probably has the support of a lot of Palin fans, Palin is taking aim at frontrunning former congressman Tom Campbell. But if her aim was that far off on a moose hunt, she’d come back empty-handed. Tom Campbell is often described as a moderate Republican, and sometimes as a (moderately) libertarian Republican. But he’s certainly no liberal, and it’s just nuts to say that he’s no different from Barbara Boxer. Here are the ratings that Boxer and Campbell received from various rating organizations in 2000, the last year they were both in Congress:

It is being reported that the Senate has reached a “compromise” on Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve. This amendment was a companion to Ron Paul’s House bill that would have subjected both the Federal Reserve’s lending facilities and monetary policy to a GAO audit. The compromise? Drop the monetary policy audit. It is hard to match Ron Paul’s reaction: “Bernie Sanders has sold out.”

Congressmen Paul is 100% right on this. While it is important to get details on the Fed’s emergency lending facility, those decisions are behind us. The public has a right to know who benefited from the Fed’s actions, but the reality is that such an audit would change little going forward. The real action is monetary policy.

After having spent seven years as a staffer on the Senate Banking Committee, I can attest that most senators, congressman and their staff have little understanding of the mechanics of monetary policy. Just listen to any random appearance of the Fed chairman before Congress and you will immediately know what I mean. But then, congressman in general don’t understand the workings of most federal programs. That is one of the purposes of the GAO: to help explain to Congress how programs work and evaluate how well those programs are working. I can think of no area more in need of such understanding than monetary policy.

Of course, some worry that an audit would undermine the claimed independence of the Fed. For instance, former Hartford insurance exec, now Obama Treasury official, Neal Wolin praised the compromise, claiming the original language would “threaten the central bank’s independence from Congress.” Sadly, Mr. Wolin is confused about the nature of the Fed. If there is a constitutional basis for the Fed, it is Article I, Section 8’s delegation to Congress of the ability “to coin money, regulate the value there of,” which Congress has delegated to the Fed. The supposed independence of the Fed is from the Executive branch, not Congress. And one of the very reasons for an audit is for the public to have a window into the dealings of the Fed with the Executive branch, most importantly the Treasury. What Mr. Wolin and others are trying to protect is the favored relationship between Treasury and the Fed. A GAO audit would shift the balance of power over the Fed away from the Executive and back to Congress, who despite its many problems, is directly accountable to the American public.

The gutting of the Sanders’ amendment is a huge win for both Wall Street and the Treasury (is there any longer a difference between the two?), and a massive loss and missed opportunity for the American public, and its representatives in Congress, to regain some control over an agency (the Fed) that has acted as a piggybank for both Presidents Bush and Obama.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the federal government has insufficient power:

The attempted Times Square bombing has underscored the challenge of managing security threats from citizens with clean records, but U.S. authorities are limited in the tools they can employ to legally monitor travel and other behavior of Americans who haven’t otherwise aroused suspicion.

That’s rich.

A graphic representation (from the Bloomington, Ill. Pantagraph and via the American Family Business Institute’s Twitter account).

The Smoking Gun and Miami Herald report that a Miami International Airport TSA worker has been arrested for beating up a co-worker who joked about his endowment after observing the assailant walk through a whole-body imager or “strip-search machine.”

Herat, Afghanistan—Malou Innocent and I have escaped Kabul for the much more pleasant city of Herat, in northwest Afghanistan near Iran and Turkmenistan. We haven’t left all of Afghanistan’s many problems behind, but the atmosphere here is far different than in Kabul.

Set in a wide plain, Herat played an important historic role as part of the “Silk Road,” the famed Asian trading route. Although captured by the victorious Taliban, Herat showed little sympathy for its new overlords. After its liberation the city suffered from the domination of “warlord” Ismail Khan, but sprouts of liberalism increasingly can be seen in Herat. For instance, though women are expected to cover their hair, women’s organizations have proliferated and gained public acceptance.

Violence is minimal, though an RPG attack six months ago effectively shut down what had been the city’s only five-star hotel, transformed into offices for Westerners. Set on a hill dramatically overlooking the city, the building offered too tempting a target.

Tight security is evident at the airport, hotels, government buildings, and NGO offices. But there are far fewer armed police on the streets, machine gun-topped Humvees at intersections, and fortress-like buildings. Most concrete goes to construction rather than barriers. Barbed wire is used sparingly, not by the mile, as in Kabul.

The international presence is strong, but not as overwhelming as in the capital. We generated a lot of attention when we were on the street. Most reactions were positive. Children wanted their pictures taken with us; students wanted to practice their English; adults wanted to introduce themselves. We exercised caution and were closely guarded, but never felt the sense of persistent menace as in Kabul.

Most humbling was meeting with human rights activists. Our cultures differ dramatically in some regards, but what most Afghans desire is not much different than what Americans want: peace and prosperity, freedom and opportunity. Evident on the street are the strong family and friendship ties that underlie Afghan society. A number of people have stepped out heroically in an attempt to build a better society. 

The consistent frustration of these activists is the Afghan government. Corruption is pervasive; the police cannot be trusted. While people disagree over America’s future role, virtually everyone desires a more effective, representative, and honest Afghan government. And many of them believe that requires less, rather than more, international “aid.”

Malou and I have a few more days in Afghanistan, and another city to visit. So far it has been a fascinating and challenging visit. Many hard decisions must be made to reorient U.S. policy. Among the hardest of those decisions must be made regarding Afghanistan.