A lot of right wingers have been arguing that John McCain was not a hero in Vietnam. He did not claim to be.

I looked up his interview with "US News and World Report" from the seventies, and he admits that his first words when he was captured were an offer to give information in return for medical care. McCain himself has said repeatedly that anyone who did not cooperate with the Cong in the Hanoi Hilton did not come out alive. He's named the real heroes, and they are dead.

His medals have been denounced as "boiler plate," because they are awarded to everyone in his category. Normally, such a medal is only awarded to those who are seen by witnesses to show courage "above and beyond the call of duty.'

But there were no witnesses when McCain was questioned by the Cong, and the other survivors, all of them American airmen doing their duty, went through the Hanoi Hilton and came out alive, just as he did.

But none of us, I think, would say that he and his comrades do not DESERVE medals. They went through hell for this country, when America's media and a major portion of our population were condemning them, and the Fondas were giving aid and comfort, in America and even in North Vietnam itself, to their tormentors.

On the other hand, this is a disservice to those who, in the sight of witnesses, did more than their duty to their country, and often died doing it.

We should separate courage above and beyond the call of duty from having put a duty upon a group of fairly typical American servicemen that no human being should have to bear. We should be proud of how high a duty Americans can perform as part of their call.

We all have a right to be proud of the Hanoi Hilton survivors precisely because all of them did all that in the name of duty. No one should deny them medals for their suffering above and beyond what should be the call of duty.

If you don't want to be stereotyped, don't act like a stereotype. Now that conservative points are being made on the Fox Cable News Channel, the response of almost every female liberal interviewed is to scream. This kind of hysteria is exactly what the women's' lib movement claimed women do NOT do, but that is what they do when challenged.

In fact, the root of the word "hysteria" ties it to women. I think women have every right to resent that deeply -- unless they get hysterical about it.

A redheaded black woman spoke for reparations to black people for slavery on Fox Cable News Network. She made herself into a living, breathing stereotype of feminine hysteria.

On August 26, 2000, in REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY -- A LIVELIER ISSUE THAN YOU MIGHT THINK, I said that even in the 1960s, I was dealing with this issue of reparations. In my economics class, I pointed out that descendants of blacks who were enslaved are economically infinitely better off than the offspring of those who were not. In terms of money, if we are going to do this, black Americans would owe vast sums to the evil white race.

No one disputes this. The anti-reparations man on Fox pointed out to the red-headed black lady that the children of American slaves now receive FIFTY TIMES the income of those who avoided slavery.

Absolutely nobody disputes this. So what was her response?

Her response was the same one that scares off all respectable conservatives: a shriek. She began loudly demanding how he dared say such a thing.

As well she might. Nobody else dares point out facts like this to her.

She shrieked "racist" at him for stating this fact, and went into the usual hysterical fit.

Nothing liberals advocate ever WORKS, but no respectable conservative is ever allowed to state this fact. One of my friends on a national talk show once pointed out that every year we have given more money to public schools, and each one of those years test scores have headed downwards.

Once again, no one disputes that the test score decline has gone hand in hand with Federal increases, but the liberal on the show sounded a lot like that red-headed black woman. He didn't shriek, but he did shout, in effect, "heresy."

My friend was never invited back.

We all know that exactly the same thing happened with the book "The Bell Curve"." No one disputes the facts, but every conservative will help suppress any discussion of those facts.

By the way, the co-author of that book was a Jewish Harvard psychology professor named Richard Herrnstein. When the book was published, he was dying of cancer. The only argument liberals make about the book is to say it is a pack of lies cooked up for money by white supremacists.

The best argument against this rather obvious liberal shriek is that Herrnstein cleared the book for publication when he knew he was dying. When liberals have made this particular shriek, I have asked them why a Jewish Harvard professor would sign on to such a piece of heresy for future gain, when he knew he had no future.

"The Bell Curve" is a deathbed statement, and those are notoriously truthful.

No respectable conservative will ever ask this. They tacitly admit the liberals' premise: facts are racist.