The Competitive Demonization of Jesse Helms

My initial post on Jesse Helms death (where I cite the left's tremendous disrespect of the North Carolina Senator), generated this from Whisky Fire:

The numbnut at the American Power blog says this post is "among the most disrespectful" posts about Helms' death in the Left Blogosphere. The devil you say! This is at least one of the top two most disrespectful posts in the Left Blogosphere on the subject of this particular expired bigot, as it features the word "motherf**ker." Martini Revolution says "good f**king riddance," and Comments from Left Field remarks that he was a "racist, homophobic assbag," which are both accurate and morally unexceptionable, but do not rise to the level of "motherf**ker." I'm not sure we've surpassed TBogg's observation that Senator Helms is currently getting ass-f**ked by Roy Cohn in Hell, however.

These are crucial distinctions and it is important to get them right.

What can I say? Maybe the lefties find competitive demonization funny?

I can note that a number of other commentators noticed the depths of Whiskey Fire's depravity, for example, in Noel Sheppard's, "Netroots Celebrate Helms's Death With Vulgar Attacks:"

Apparently devoid of ... human decency, the folks in the Netroots, within minutes of Friday's announcement concerning the death of Jesse Helms, began publishing virulent and vulgar epithets directed at the former senator, with some actually voicing a desire to dance on his grave.

Devoid of human decency pretty much sums things up. Indeed, not to be outdone, Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings, sought this morning to have the last word on Helms' alleged evil, starting with an obligatory moral qualifier:

I haven't written anything about Jesse Helms' death, since I don't like speaking ill of the dead. However: every so often, conservatives wonder: why oh why do people think that the Republican party, and/or the conservative movement, is bigoted? I think that the conservative response to Helms' death ought to settle that debate once and for all.

Hilzoy's post is one long chronicle of Helms' statements on the controversial issues of the day, with not a shred of countervailing information to provide some balance.

It's clear that left and right are not going to agree on how to treat the legacy of someone as polarizing as Jesse Helms.

But for the record, here are some additional thought for consideration, first, from Marc Thiessen:

With the passing of Sen. Jesse Helms, the media have demonstrated one final time that they never fully understood the power or impact of this great man. Consider, for example, The Post's obituary of Helms; here are some things you would not learn about his life and legacy by reading it:

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Helms led the successful effort to bring Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the NATO alliance. He secured passage of bipartisan legislation to protect our men and women in uniform from the International Criminal Court. He won overwhelming approval for his legislation to support the Cuban people in their struggle against a tyrant. He won majority support in the Senate for his opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. He helped secure passage of the National Missile Defense Act and stopped the Clinton administration from concluding a new anti-ballistic missile agreement in its final months in office -- paving the way for today's deployment of America's first defenses against ballistic missile attack. He helped secure passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, which expressed strong bipartisan support for regime change in Baghdad. He secured broad, bipartisan support to reorganize the State Department and bring much-needed reform to the United Nations, and he became the first legislator from any nation to address the U.N. Security Council -- a speech few in that chamber will forget.

Watching this record of achievement unfold, columnist William Safire wrote in 1997: "Jesse Helms, bete noire of knee-jerk liberals . . . is turning out to be the most effectively bipartisan chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since Arthur Vandenberg. . . . Let us see if he gets the credit for statesmanship that he deserves from a striped-pants establishment." This weekend, we got our answer.

What his critics could not appreciate is that, by the time he left office, Jesse Helms had become a mainstream conservative. And it was not because Helms had moved toward the mainstream -- it was because the mainstream moved toward him.

But note the discussion of Helm's in William Link's preface to, Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism:

Although Jesse had earned a fearsome reputation for his slash-and-burn political tactics, there was also a softer side. Within his political circle, Helms was compassionate and caring; his Senate staffers uniformly remembered him warmly. By the late 1980s, Helms was well known for his personal style and his conscious rejection of the imperiousness of some of his colleagues. In 1998, when the Washingtonian surveyed 1,200 staffers and Capitol Hill employees, Jesse was rated among the nicest senators. Garrett Epps, a columnist for the liberal Independent Weekly, published in Durham, interviewed Helms in 1989. He was surprised at what he found. “The Helms I expected,” he recalled, “was a sizzling-hot, angry, defensive ideologue.” The person he found instead was “relaxed, friendly, funny and genuinely curious about ideas and people.” Don Nickles, one of Helms’s closest allies in the Senate, later reflected that the common caricatures of Helms as mean and vindictive were “misplaced.” Nickles described him as “probably the nicest person serving in the Senate,” certainly “the most gentlemanly of any of the senators,” and a person who “epitomized the Southern gentleman.” In his dealings with other senators he was “always very pleasant, never disagreeable.” He was also unpretentious, according to Nickles. During Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981, Nickles recalled, Helms objected when police stopped traffic so that a bus with senators could pass through.

Helms’ personal warmth extended beyond senators. The third floor of the Dirksen Office Building, where Jesse’s Senate offices were located, contained two public elevators, which were old and slow, and three private elevators reserved only for senators. Staffers and visitors that snuck on the senators’ elevator were routinely evicted. The public elevator, located just outside of Helms’s office, was often crowded with tourists. If he noticed them waiting, Helms delighted in gathering tourists and taking them on the senators’ elevator, or for a ride on the Senate subway shuttle that ran between Dirksen and the Capitol, even when votes were about to occur and the shuttle was reserved for senators. Sometimes, on the spur of the moment, Helms ushered tourists to the family gallery, on the third floor of the Senate, and provided seats for them to watch the proceedings. The Senate guards were so used to Jesse’s routine with visitors that they often chuckled when they saw him coming with an entourage in tow. He considered himself a sort of unofficial host of Capitol Hill, and he personally felt that it was his duty to ensure that tourists enjoyed their visit.

There's more at the link.

Helms was also apparently unsurpassed at constituency service, a quality even Pam Spaulding noted in her otherwise critical obituary (which she updates here).

Other leftists were also respectful (here and here, for example), but overall I think the whole episode largely confirms the secular demonology of contemporary far left-wing ideologues on matters of life and death.

See also, Little Green Footballs, "RIP, Jesse Helms," and Ross Douthat, "The Case of Jesse Helms."

Douthat says Helms should not be a model:

If Ronald Reagan and Helms had similar positions on countless issues, that doesn't prove that Helms was good for conservatism; it only suggests that conservatives should look for more Reagans, and fewer Jesse Helms. I'm happy to defend Helms' views on a variety of issues, but the man himself has no business in the right-wing pantheon, and the conservatives who have used his death as an occasion to argue that he does are doing their movement a grave disservice.

That's not the key issue from my perspective (and Douthat might underestimate Helms' impact), but see the whole thing.

There's an interesting reaction at Village Voice as well, "Post Racial: Rightbloggers Shade Helms' Civil Rights History."

Photo Credit: New York Times

Highway 33: A Good Road for Seeking California

In "A Workaday Road That Cuts Through California's Back Story," Peter King re-inaugurates his "On California" column today at the Los Angeles Times:

California is laced with fabled roadways: Highway 1, the Golden State, El Camino Real, Route 66 and many others. Some follow the footpaths of padres, the trails of wagon trains. And some are monuments to the Freeway Age and California's bearhug embrace of Car Culture. ¶ State Highway 33 will not be confused with any of these asphalt icons. Nobody's likely to write a song about Highway 33, although in one stretch it does cut through Buck Owens country. Nor will a literary anthology be built around it, as was done not long ago with the Central Valley's Highway 99. ¶ Still, to travel this two-lane from top to bottom -- a 300-mile drive that begins just below the San Francisco Bay delta, passes through the San Joaquin Valley's west side, crosses steep coastal mountains and ends at Ventura, where Highway 33 disappears into the 101 -- is to tour what might be called the real California.

If you've got a few minutes be sure to read the whole thing.

King wrote the "On California" column in the 1990s, and I always enjoyed the articles, especially for their wistful stories of the San Joaquin Valley, a place at the heart of traditional California that is quintessentially American.

Obama Opens Up Convention as Protesters Prepare Direct Action

There's an almost incredible incongruity to the politics of the Democratic National Convention today.

On the one hand, Democrats plan to "throw open the doors of the convention" by holding Barack Obama's acceptance speech at INVESCO Field at Mile High in Denver; while on the other hand, hardline activists in the party base intend to hold protest rallies outside of the convention, apparently in the hope of holding Obama's feet to the radical fire:

Every four years, liberal activists follow political power brokers and the world media to the Democratic and Republican party conventions, filling the streets with spirited protest against war, corporate domination and environmental destruction.

This year there's a twist: Many protesters will demonstrate outside a convention that will nominate the first black major-party presidential candidate in history, who is opposed to the Iraq war and was once a community organizer and activist in Chicago.

But Barack Obama will not get a pass from demonstrators at the Democratic National Convention. Activists say they are wary of his shift to the center since he secured the nomination last month.

"We're hoping he can remember his roots and, through these mass rallies and protests, we can move him," said Glenn Spagnuolo, a spokesman for an umbrella group coordinating the Denver protests, provocatively named Re-create '68.

For more on Recreate 68, check here and here.

These folks are hardine leftists of the first order.

So far Obama's pretty much thrown them under the bus - they most likely won't be in attendance at Mile High - but the public spectacle of radical protests throughout the convention will be a reminder of Obama's very real ties to prominent nihilist cohorts of an identical stripe.

See also, "Obama Picks 75,000-Seat Stadium for Convention Speech."

Left-Wing NGOs: Terrorist Propagandists for FARC

Via Prairie Pundit, don't miss Mary Anastasia O'Grady's analysis of left-wing NGO support for FARC:

As we learn more about the Colombian military's daring hostage rescue last week, one detail stands out: In tricking FARC rebels into putting the hostages aboard a helicopter, undercover special forces simply told the comandantes that the aircraft was being loaned to them by a fictitious nongovernmental organization sympathetic to their cause called the International Humanitarian Mission.

It may have taken years for army intelligence to infiltrate the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and it may have been tough to convincingly impersonate rebels. But what seems to have been a walk in the park was getting the FARC to believe that an NGO was providing resources to help it in the dirty work of ferrying captives to a new location.

I am reminded of President Álvaro Uribe's 2003 statement that some "human rights" organizations in his country were fronts for terrorists. Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd got his back up over Mr. Uribe's statement, and piously lectured the Colombian president about "the importance of democratic values."

But as the helicopter story suggests, Mr. Uribe seems to have been right. How else to explain the fact that the FARC swallowed the line without batting an eye?

This warrants attention because it adds to the already robust evidence that left-wing NGOs and other so-called human rights defenders, including Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Colombian Sen. Piedad Cordoba, are nothing more than propagandists for terrorists.

O'Grady's the best journalist writing on Latin America.

See also, "The Ingrid Betancourt Rescue."

Related: Gateway Pundit, "DEM SHOCKER!!... Speaker Pelosi Was Sending Messages to FARC Terrorists While Undermining Colombian Government!"

True Patriots? How to Celebrate America

I'm still blown away by how intensely partisan were the events surrounding this year's Fourth of July. I wrote about this earlier in my entry, "Protesters Disrupt Independence Day Ceremony for New Citizens."

But the debate continued yesterday, for example, at Winds of Change, which took issue with Matthew Yglesias' post-patriotic relativism (he argued for, essentially, the internationalization of national pride, strangely enough).

Less abstract were the comments in the thread from this news story on Code Pink's anti-Bush Fourth of July protests:

Those of you on the “so-called” right (otherwise known as “fascists” in other parts of the world) should open your eyes and take a look around you. You don’t seem to realize that we (used to) live in a country where free speech was valued. Those Americans who expressed themselves have a right to be angry with Bush and his administration. He has lied to us and the world, and his lies have cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives (or maybe you live on a different planet than the rest of us?)! Maybe you should stop watching so much Fox tv news and read a real book — may I suggest Wallerstein’s “European Universalism” for a start?!?!?

You are the people that embarrass this country — you make me want to vomit!

So, conservatives should go read a "real book"?

Sure, but Emmanuel Wallerstein? Let's just say our commenter's reading recommendations place him firmly in the postmodernist camp.

See also, Protein Wisdom, "Yglesias Breaks the Rule of Holes on Patriotism."

Image Credit: The People's Cube (notice the "patriotism node").

Campus "Post-Racial" Politics

Folks throw around the word fascist quite a bit in describing the left, and in this case on campus racial politics, from Dorothy Rabinowitz, I can see the applicability:

Keith Sampson, a student employee on the janitorial staff earning his way toward a degree, was in the habit of reading during work breaks. Last October he was immersed in "Notre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan."

Mr. Sampson was in short order visited by his union representative, who informed him he must not bring this book to the break room, and that he could be fired. Taking the book to the campus, Mr. Sampson says he was told, was "like bringing pornography to work." That it was a history of the battle students waged against the Klan in the 1920s in no way impressed the union rep.

The assistant affirmative action officer who next summoned the student was similarly unimpressed. Indeed she was, Mr. Sampson says, irate at his explanation that he was, after all, reading a scholarly book. "The Klan still rules Indiana," Marguerite Watkins told him – didn't he know that? Mr. Sampson, by now dazed, pointed out that this book was carried in the university library. Yes, she retorted, you can get Klan propaganda in the library.

The university has allowed no interviews with Ms. Watkins or any other university official involved in the case. Still, there can be no disputing the contents of the official letter that set forth the university's case.

Mr. Sampson stood accused of "openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black co-workers." The statement, signed by chief affirmative action officer Lillian Charleston, asserted that her office had completed its investigation of the charges brought by Ms. Nakea William, his co-worker – that Mr. Sampson had continued, despite complaints, to read a book on this "inflammatory topic." "We conclude," the letter informed him, "that your conduct constitutes racial harassment. . . ." A very serious matter, with serious consequences, it went on to point out.

That was in November. Months later, in February of this year, Mr. Sampson received – from the same source – a letter with an astonishingly transformed version of his offense. And there could be no mystery as to the cause of this change.

After the official judgment against him, Mr. Sampson turned to the Indiana state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, whose office contacted university attorneys. Worse, the case got some sharp local press coverage that threatened to get wider.

Ludicrous harassment cases are not rare at our institutions of higher learning. But there was undeniably something special – something pure, and glorious – in the clarity of this picture. A university had brought a case against a student on grounds of a book he had been reading.

And so the new letter to Mr. Sampson by affirmative action officer Charleston brought word that she wished to clarify her previous letter, and to say it was "permissible for him to read scholarly books or other materials on break time." About the essential and only theme of the first letter – the "racially abhorrent" subject of the book – or the warnings that any "future substantiated conduct of a similar nature could mean serious disciplinary action" – there was not a word. She had meant in that first letter, she said, only to address "conduct" that caused concern among his co-workers.

What that conduct was, the affirmative action officer did not reveal – but she had delivered the message rewriting the history of the case. Absolutely and for certain there had been no problem about any book he had been reading.

This, indeed, was now the official story – as any journalist asking about the case would learn instantly from the university's media relations representatives. It would take a heart of stone not to be moved – if not much – by the extraordinary efforts of these tormented agents trying to explain that the first letter was all wrong: No reading of any book had anything to do with the charges against Mr. Sampson. This means, I asked one, that Mr. Sampson could have been reading about the adventures of Jack and Jill and he still would have been charged? Yes. What, then, was the offense? "Harassing behavior." While reading the book? The question led to careful explanations hopeless in tone – for good reason – and well removed from all semblance of reason. What the behavior was, one learned, could never be revealed.

There was, of course, no other offensive behavior; had there been any it would surely have appeared in the first letter's gusher of accusation. Like those prosecutors who invent new charges when the first ones fail in court, the administrators threw in the mysterious harassment count. Such were the operations of the university's guardians of equity and justice.

In April – having been pressed by the potent national watchdog group FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) as well as the ACLU – University Chancellor Charles R. Bantz finally sent them a letter expressing regret over this affair, and testifying to his profound commitment to freedom of expression. So far as can be ascertained, the university has extended no such expressions of regret to Keith Sampson.

Rabinowitz ties up the analysis with a discussion of Barack Obama's "post-racial" politics. Everything in Democratic politics is perceived as racist, as the primary campaign demonstrated. "There will be much more ahead, directed to the Republicans and their candidate."

I noticed this last night, when Michael Stickings argued that John McCain's only hope in November is to appeal to inherent Republican bigotry.

The twists and turns on the question of race and politics are endless, but next time lefties throw out these allegations, remind them of Keith Sampson.

Gatorade Girl's Incredible Catch

Apparently, Gatorade decided against running this advertisement in full television distribution, but they should think again:

Hat Tip: Charles Martin

Al Qaeda in Iraq, Nearly Crushed, Recruits Women Bombers

Captain Ed reports on "the most spectacular victory" over al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq, where he draws on the Times of London's report, "Iraqis Lead Final Purge of Al-Qaeda."

The Captain makes an interesting observation:

Did you know that the US and Iraq will shortly conclude “one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror”? You wouldn’t if you read American newspapers or watched American television.

No, you wouldn't, as Abe Greenwald points out in his post, "The Times’s Debilitating OCD," where "OCD" stands for "obsessive compulsive disorder," with reference to the newspaper's effort to:

...prove that the American invasion of Iraq ... created violent enemies among the native population of Iraq, and that American aggression, not regional Islamism, is to blame for the majority of the resultant carnage.

Perhaps there's a little OCD in the Times' report this morning, "Despair Drives Suicide Attacks by Iraqi Women."

The article suggests that the increase in female bombings:

...seems to have arisen at least in part because of successes in detaining and killing local members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown Sunni insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is led by foreigners.

The real cause of the trend is not American and Iraqi successes, however, but al Qaeda's own fanatical theocratic nihilism, which is clearly illustrated further down in the report:

Female suicide bombers are not a new phenomenon in Iraq or elsewhere, but they have been relatively rare. Since 2003, 43 women have carried out suicide bombings in Iraq, a tiny percentage of the total, according to the United States military. Though the first two cases came in the first year of the war, suicide attacks by women did not really become a trend until 2007, when there were eight such bombings in Iraq. All but one of the female bombers have been Iraqis and most are young, between the ages of 15 and 35, according to the police and American military analysts. Almost all the attacks have been attributed to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, which is also known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Diyala has been a stronghold for the group since it was chased from Anbar Province in the west in 2004. The province’s attraction was clear: it offers easy hiding places in its palm groves and orchards, and a Sunni-majority population that includes many people who supported Saddam Hussein and are sympathetic to the insurgency.

But in the past year, American and Iraqi forces have had much greater success in killing and detaining the group’s members in the province, as well as thwarting many of its bigger attack plots. The rise in female suicide bombings has directly coincided with the timing, and the locations, of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia’s biggest loss of manpower in Diyala, Baghdad and Anbar.

“Al Qaeda is always innovating: finding new ways to work,” said Ghanem al-Khoreishi, the police chief of Diyala. “When we destroyed them in fighting, they started to use new methods. And because they knew that women are treated more gently than men, they began to use them.

“The people don’t search them so well even at checkpoints.”

So, al Qaeda's finding "innovative" ways to spread the death and disaster. I'm sure Newshoggers will be cheering at that (Juan Cole certainly is).

See also, Protein Wisdom.

A Democratic Senate? GOP Prospects Look Unfavorable

The Democrats are already favored to win the House in November, but Janet Hook makes the case for Democratic gains in the Senate as well:

Mississippi, one of the nation's most conservative states, has not elected a Democratic senator in a quarter-century. It has voted for Republican presidential candidates in the last seven elections.

But this year, there is a real chance that the state will send a Democrat to the Senate.
That prospect is a window onto a remarkable political trend that has been eclipsed by the fireworks surrounding the 2008 presidential contest: Democrats are running strong Senate campaigns in states such as Mississippi, Alaska and North Carolina that Republicans have long taken for granted.

The outlook for the GOP is so grim that party leaders have readily conceded there is no chance they can regain control of the Senate in 2008, even though Democrats' current majority is slim, 51-49.

"If you have an R in front of your name, you better run scared," said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who says the party will do well if it holds its losses to three or four seats.

The Mississippi race between Democratic former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and Republican Sen. Roger Wicker distills the wide range of factors that have put congressional Republicans in their weakest position since the Watergate scandal of the 1970s.

The overall political climate, shaped by the sluggish economy and President Bush's low approval ratings, is souring many voters on Republicans. The party has been hobbled by a stampede of retirements by senior Republicans, including Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott. After Lott quit in 2007, Wicker was appointed to replace him.

Barack Obama's presidential campaign has generated a big boost in Democratic voter registration, especially among African Americans, who make up more than a third of Mississippi's population. Other quirks, such as ethics scandals, are putting more Republican Senate seats at risk than seemed likely a year ago.

In June 2007, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report identified only one race for a Republican Senate seat as a real tossup. Now it identifies seven Republican seats as at risk.

The stakes for Obama in the Senate races are high. If he is elected president, the biggest obstacle to his goals could be in the Senate, where parliamentary rules mean that it can take 60 votes to approve legislation. The Senate currently includes 49 Democrats and two independents who are aligned with the Democratic caucus.

"Big changes don't happen without big Senate majorities," Obama wrote in a recent letter urging Democrats to contribute to Senate campaign coffers.

For now, most political analysts are predicting a Democratic gain of four to eight seats, which would leave the party short of the 60-vote threshold. But Republicans are worried, because bigger gains are not out of the question: Democratic fundraising is strong and the battlefield is heavily tilted against the GOP.

I think this last section's key: If Democrats pick up nine seats, they'll have a filibuster proof majority. See also, "The Power of 41: GOP Senate Minority Frustrates Democrats."

Obama's Liabilities on Iraq

Barack Obama's shifted so quickly to the ideological center that his need to appear moderate is looking more like a distraction, even a liablility.

This is especially true on the issue of Iraq, where Obama's long record of being the most prominent antiwar Democrat is being jettisoned by the candidate's pure expediency:

Here's this, from the National Post:

For months now, Senator Obama has been insisting he would have all U. S. troops home within 16 months of being sworn in as president. Even if this were a realistic timetable for bringing Iraq to the point where it can police itself -- which it isn't -- it is foolish to announce it to the world. If al-Qaeda in Iraq and other terror groups know for sure when U. S. troops will be gone, they will simply lay low and preserve their resources until then. Iran, which has been equipping terror groups and sectarian militias, can also bide its time.

Mr. Obama seemed to recognize the rashness of his earlier promise -- for about four hours on Thursday.

Speaking at a press conference in Fargo, N. D., the Illinois senator said he would "refine" his policy on Iraq after visiting there later this summer and speaking with commanders. But so immediate -- and outraged -- was the reaction in the Democratic blogosphere that Mr. Obama felt the need to go back before reporters later the same afternoon and insist his Iraq pledge had not changed. "I intend to end this war," he said. "I have seen no information that contradicts the notion that we can bring troops out safely at a pace of one to two brigades per month…I continue to believe that it is a strategic error for us to maintain a long-term occupation in Iraq at a time when conditions in Afghanistan are worsening."

See also, Hot Air, "Obama: Rest Assured, I’m Still Fully Committed to Abandoning Iraq," and "Obama: I’m Willing to “Refine My Policies” on Iraq."

Obama's Audio Book Could Damage Candidacy

The Politico reports that the audio-book version of Barack Obama's, Dreams from My Father, could prove highly damaging to the liberal Illinois Senator's campaign this fall:

Barack Obama has proved to be a difficult target to hit — just ask Hillary Rodham Clinton. Opposition researchers, though, hope that they’ve found a weapon to wound Obama in his own voice as recorded for the Grammy Award-winning audio version of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams from My Father.”

While candidates often have their own words turned against them in attack ads, it’s one thing to see past statements in block text and something else entirely to hear the same words in the office-seeker’s own voice....

”Dreams from My Father” has been widely acclaimed as an introspective and insightful read far from the anodyne campaign-oriented books politicians often produce, traits that Obama’s critics believe make it ideal for use against the candidate.

In a passage describing his high school experience in Hawaii, for example, Obama explains the allure of drugs: “I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically. … If the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down,” Obama intones, “it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly.”

While many voters know that Obama used drugs as a young man, they haven’t heard the senator describe his drug use in those terms, or in his own voice. Nor have they heard him extensively quoting from the first sermon he heard from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., his longtime clergyman whom he renounced during the primary, saying, “The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

Read the whole thing.

Apparently, Hugh Hewitt's been using Obama audio replays in his radio broadcasts (see Hewitt's own post, "Senator Obama, Unplugged").

This could be a veritable goldmine for right-wing smearmasters (Obama's audio-book lauds Revererend Jeremiah Wright, including passages trumpeting, "where white folks' greed runs a world in need."

Hewitt sees the potential:

It has to be the most unusual book ever by a presidential aspirant, and much of what he writes cannot be classified as mainstream...

I'll say.

Protesters Disrupt Independence Day Ceremony for New Citizens

One commenter, at my post, Progressives and Patriotism, asked, "Partisanship, even on the 4th of July?"

Well, yes, unfortunately:

As is the tradition each Fourth of July, a naturalization ceremony was held at Monticello in Charlottesville, Va. This year, 76 immigrants from 30 different countries came to take the oath of citizenship.

But Bush repeatedly was interrupted as he welcomed the guests.

"That man is a fascist!" one protester yelled. Another swore at him.

The protesters later were removed from the ceremony by law enforcement officials.

"To my fellow citizens to be — we believe in free speech in the United States of America," Bush said when the protesters started shouting.

To the din of more yelling, Bush discussed Jefferson’s legacy as he introduced the citizens.

"We honor Jefferson’s legacy by aiding the rise of liberty in lands that do not know the blessings of freedom, and on this Fourth of July we pay tribute to the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America," he said.

I'm sure our new fellow Americans will never forget the moment, when they strained to hear their president welcoming them to our union.

Photo Credit: Atlas Shrugs, "AP photo of Desiree Fairooz" (remember her?).

Truly, Madly, Deeply in Love With America

In case you missed it, here's Villainous Company's paean to America:

I have a confession to make. I am truly, madly, deeply in love with America.

I love my country not because she is perfect, but because she wants so badly to be. I even love her faults, even the kind of obsessive navel gazing angst that mistakes fallible humans and imperfect realization of our ideals for evidence of pervasive moral rot and in so doing, makes conscience the scourge that would make moral cowards of us all...

Also recommended, Sundries Shack:

When I look back at our 232 years, when I see where we started and how far we’ve come and what we’ve accomplished as a people, do I really need to tell you why I’m proud?

Yes, unfortunately, as it seems like the greatness of America's getting lost in an alternative history.

Here's to wishing all of my readers a wonderful summer.

Photo Credit: Ridgecrest Blog

The Ingrid Betancourt Rescue

The New York Times reports that the Columbian government has released videotape of Ingrid Betancourt's dramatic rescue from FARC captivity. An upload is available on YouTube.

This is a story that should be getting more play around the blogosphere. One would be hard pressed to find a more powerful example of international intelligence, military, and law enforcement cooperation than that found in the years-long, high-level planning to secure Betancourt's release.

The Los Angeles Times offered a penetrating analysis on Thurdsay, "15 Hostages Freed as FARC is Fooled in Cunning Operation," which includes this passage on joint American-Columbian planning:

Colombian armed forces using U.S. intelligence technology are thought to have cracked the rebels' communications system and tracked their movements by monitoring cellphone and satellite phone usage.

Those compromised communications may have enabled the Colombian forces to spin the ruse that led to the rescue. Details were not disclosed Wednesday on how FARC commander "Cesar" was fooled into bringing together the 15 hostages from three locations.

U.S. military spokespersons, wanting to emphasize the independence of the Colombian military in planning the operation, declined to comment on the rescue. One said U.S. involvement in the hostage rescue was limited to providing a medical team to care for the freed captives and a transport plane.

"This was a Colombian-planned and -executed operation," said the military official. "It was based largely on intelligence they had developed."

But another military official acknowledged that the United States had been told of the rescue plan in advance, which allowed U.S. officials to provide a transport plane and a team of medical personnel.

"They had given us enough heads-up so we could have the aircraft standing by in the event they went ahead with the mission and it was successful," said the officer. "We were aware enough of the planning to be ready to respond with the aircraft and the medical team."

For more on this, see Powerline, "Reflections on the Rescue," and, especially, Fausta, "The Colombian Hostage Rescue: Aftermath."

Related: Atlas Shrugs, "Israel Helped in FARC Hostage Rescue Operation."

*********

UPDATE: Don't miss Saber Point's essay on the left's propaganda campaign to delegitimize Betancourt's rescue, "FARC Communists Lying About Colombian Rescue Operation

Obama Now Wears His Patriotism

Barack Obama's apparently newly sensitive to public opinion, as it turns out that he won't leave home without his trusty flag pin:

Barack Obama, who once considered flag pins a shallow symbol, can't surround himself with enough patriotic trappings these days.

At the Fourth of July parade here, Obama sat in the reviewing stand with his wife and two young daughters, admiring the simple floats dedicated to rescue workers and local high schools.

He seldom goes out in public now without a flag pin stuck in his lapel. He devoted an entire speech to patriotism this week in Independence, Mo. Visually reinforcing the message, he stood in front of a quartet of large American flags.

None of this is an accident. Polling shows that on the threshold test any serious presidential candidate must pass, Obama has ground to cover.

A CNN poll released one day after the Illinois senator gave his patriotism speech showed that a quarter of registered voters surveyed questioned Obama's love of country. Nearly 30% of the respondents who described themselves as independents -- a coveted slice of the electorate -- believed he lacks patriotism, according to the survey.

So Obama wants to convince voters that he is every bit as patriotic as his Republican opponent. That's not an easy sell: Arizona Sen. John McCain, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

There's more at the link.

See also, "The Two Sides of America Observe July 4th."

Republicans as "Racist Zombies"?

It's something of a cottage industry on the left to smear Republicans as racist.

Bigotry knows no ideological boundaries, of course, but prominent lefties have an obssessive propensity to attack the entire GOP electorate as hooded night riders.

A prominent example is Dave Neiwart's post yesterday, "The Race Zombies: Caught Between Hate For Obama, Contempt For McCain:

AlterNet's Gabriel Thompson was in Alabama last weekend for the annual conference of the Council of Conservative Citizens, and his report is well worth the eye-opening read, just to get a sense for what a pack of jabbering cross-burners these folks really are. And as you can imagine, the prospect of an Obama presidency is driving them into a cannibalistic rage.

Check the link, where Neiwart reviews the comments therein, and concludes with this:

The far right ... acts as a kind of echo chamber for the mainstream right where talking points, ideas, and agendas are tested out and gradually shaped. We've already been hearing the "Muslim Obama" crap from a large number of ostensibly mainstream right-wingers, so it's just about a dead certainty the volume and intensity of it will rise as Election Day nears.

What these guys are really scared of is being treated by black people in exactly the same way they have treated them ("Yessuh, Mr. Obama") if/when economic and social positions shift. (This is, incidentally, an old motif that dates back to the lynching-era hysteria about blacks raping white women when, in reality, white men raping black women was a commonplace, both before and after slavery.) And that is the chief anxiety of these men -- that their own mistreatment of their fellow humans will come back to haunt them. As it happens, this is in fact a powerful appeal across many sectors of white society. So expect to hear strands of it woven into the GOP's attacks on Obama

Sure, this is red meat for the hard lefties, but let's take a close look at Neiwart's thesis anyway.

How about the Council of Conservative Citizens? Who are they?

Here's this from the Anti-Defamation League:

Ideology: White supremacy, white separatism.
Outreach: Mass mailings, prison newsletter.
Approach: Advances its ideology by inflaming fears and resentments, among Southern whites particularly, with regard to black-on-white crime, non-white immigration, attacks on the public display of the Confederate flag, and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture.

Now, that's from the ADL, so let's get a little more from a journalist, Thomas Edsall, known to be sympathetic to the Democratic Party agenda, "Controversial Group Has Ties to Both Parties in South":

The Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization built by supporters of the segregationist White Citizens Councils, the John Birch Society and activists in the presidential campaigns of then-Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace, has developed strong political ties to the Republican Party in the South as well as to the fading conservative wing of the southern Democratic Party.

The group's strong ties to the remnants of the now-defunct White Citizens Councils, a powerful force in Mississippi and other Deep South states in the 1950s and 1960s, gave it an organizational base as well as connections to small-town establishments, such as Rotary clubs. The group soon became part of the political culture – and both parties.

Its ties to the Democratic Party are strongest in Mississippi. William D. Lord, the group's senior field coordinator, said 34 Mississippi legislators, most of them Democrats, are members of the Council of Conservative Citizens. But most of the southern politicians associated with it are Republicans, including members in state legislatures and in prominent state party positions.

Edsall goes on to discuss how prominent Republicans, like Trent Lott and Bob Barr, maintained long-term links with the organization.

Today, however, Lott has denounced his previous open support for segregation (see, "Trent Lott's Segregationist College Days"), and he has apologized multiple times for his ties to Southern racist organizations. President George W. Bush went so far as to formally repudiate Lott's comments on the late Senator Strom Thurmond, saying that Lott's views "do not reflect the spirit of our country."

As for Bob Barr, he has emerged this year as the Libertarian candidate for the presidency, and he firmly repudiated any support from extreme right-wing groups, especially the Stormfront-types who had rallied behind Ron Paul's wayward presidential bid.

As I've noted previously, claims of racial bigotry marked the Democratic primaries this year, not the GOP's. Further, while racial animus remains at the fringe of both left and right factions, prominent Democratic activist bloggers - who claim the "mainstream" of the party - continually sponsor racial hatred as part of their political ideology (see also, "Quotes From Democrats on Race & Anti-Semitism").

Today's GOP is more open and inclusive than ever before, and John McCain himself has denounced the politics of race-baiting (see also," Who’s Playing the Race Card?").

Dave Neiwart and his extreme left-wing partisans have the most favorable electoral environment in decades, but they still can't resist falsely smearing mainstream conservatives as "jabbering cross-burners."

Obama and America's Commitment to Iraq

Barack Obama's continuing his move to the center by hedging his pledge for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq (see, "Republicans Seize on Obama's Comments on Iraq").

Iowahawk writes Obama's message to the American people: "A Clarification":

My Fellow Americans:

You may have read recent news reports that suggest I have modified my position regarding the redeployment of American military personnel in Iraq. Unfortunately, these reports have been the source of much confusion and anxiety among the millions of voters who have supported my campaign, and I would like to take this opportunity to address their concerns.

Let me be crystal clear: if elected president, my first act will be to call for the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. I have always been consistent and forthright in this position, and I want to reassure my supporters that my recent statement backtracking from it was just some bullshit my staff came up with to tack to the center for the general election. To win this election, it will be critical to appeal to the dwindling but stubborn group of idiots who cling to fantasies of American "victory" in this tragic disaster. It's an unfortunate part of the complicated game of presidential politics, but let's face it: I can't stop this war if I'm not in the White House. However, you should know by now that whatever I may say from now until November, once elected I will immediately pull the rug from these gullible pro-war rubes.

This piece is classic, so read the whole thing in the original (it's that good).

Re-Enlistment at Camp Victory in Baghdad

About 1,200 members from all the four service branches re-enlisted in a 4th of July ceremony yesterday at Camp Victory in Baghdad.

Powerline has the video:

The video above shows the mass reenlistement ceremony in the Al Faw Palace rotunda at Camp Victory, Baghdad. The troops chose to celebrate Independence Day in a way that gives expressive form to the price of freedom. According to the Army account, General Petraeus presided over the ceremony and led the airmen, Marines, sailors, and soldiers in their oath to defend their country against all enemies both foreign and domestic. "You and your comrades here have been described as America's new greatest generation, and, in my view, you have more than earned that description," Petraeus said. "It is the greatest of honors to soldier here with you."

See also, Mudville Gazette, "The Twelve Hundred."

Photo Credit: New York Times

Political Polarization and the Passing of Jesse Helms

I've been blogging for some time, but I'm still blown away by the left's vitriol at the death of Jesse Helms.

Helms was the perfect warrior for the traditional right wing, so his demonization is understandable. The Wall Street Journal puts it plainly in its editorial:

Helms was a conservative populist, and his campaigns were not above demagoguery....

Like the political shift across the South and West in the last decades of the 20th century, Helms's political rise was a reaction to the collapse of liberal governance. He sought to reassert traditional American values, and above all to defend U.S. freedom against Soviet tyranny.

I noted the left's hall of shame yesterday, and more conservative voices are sharing their thoughts as well.

**********

UPDATE: South Beach Bum commented at my earlier post, perhaps to get an outlet for his hatred:

It's just amazing how you see very little negative about him in the mainstream media, even though he was one of the most hated men in America in the last 40 years. I just wish his death had been more excruciatingly painful and that he had suffered more. He ranks in my book as the lowest of the low. America has produced few people as so completely evil and without a single redeeming quality. I am so glad he is finally dead. I've been waiting for this day for almost thirty years.

I think Helms was "one of the most hated" only on the left.

For yet another example, see Firedoglake, "Jesse Helms: Bigot, Racist, Homophobe."

Listen Children All is Not Lost...

Here's wishing everyone a Happy Fourth of July!

Please enjoy, Chicago, "Saturday In The Park":

See also: "Fourth of July: Cherish the Freedom We Enjoy," and "July Fourth: Day of Freedom and Honor."

Progressives and Patriotism

Peter Beinart offers a powerful (and balanced) analysis of America's ideological polarization over patriotism, "The War Over Patriotism."

Beinart looks carefully at the strengths and weakness of both left- and right-wing patriotism. One of his main arugment is that leftists praise America for what it stands for but not what it is, a stance that reveals a fundamental element of anti-Americanism:

Liberals may love America in part because it aspires to certain ideals, but if they love it only because it aspires to those ideals, then what they really love is the ideals, not America. Conservatives are right. To some degree, patriotism must mean loving your country for the same reason you love your family: simply because it is yours.

See also, "Obama Should Stress Patriotism, Poll Finds."

Image Credit: The People's Cube

Jesse Helms, 1921-2008

I wasn't planning on a post memorializing Jesse Helms, who died today at the age of 86, but I thought better of it after seeing the left's hatred of late North Carolina Senator.

At the "mainstream" Daily Kos, we see this:

Rather than a moment of silence in respect of the memory of Jesse Helms it is more appropriate to bellow a jingoistic, racist, msogynistic, homophobic inconmprehensible diatribe that pushes all the wrong buttons and increases the forces of intolerance because Jesse would have wanted it that way.

Also, from the comments to that post:

* There are some dead of whom nothing positive can be said. I suspect this diary won't get near the attention is should...

* Hey Helms, I will pour a beer over your grave but not before it has been filtered through my kidneys!

Here's a sample at Lawyer, Guns and Money:

* All I can say it's a good day for America. Happy fourth!

* R.I.P my ass. Helms was an evil racist and homophobe who contributed to the deaths of many ... My only regret here is that his doctor said he died 'comfortably.'

But see also, Think Progress, which takes Helms' passing as a chance to recount Helms' politics of race, allowing a few choice words in the comments:

* SO? Am I supposed to be sad about this?

* Ding dong the witch is dead.

Note, significantly that Huffington Post took preventive action against the evil, closing their obituary to comments.

I think any self-respecting person would cringe at this kind of hate.

I wrote recently about Helms' political legacy, "Jesse Helms, the Far-Right, and the GOP." The truth is that for all of Helms' racial politics, many unbigoted Americans were moved by the late Senator's willingness to tap into genuine grievances on issues such busing and affirmative action.

Helms' style of political conservatism left a lasting mark on American politics. It was a style that many denounced, but the issues Helms raised are no less important today.

May he rest in peace. My best wishes go out to the Helms family.

See also my earlier entry, "On Death and Decency: The Absence of Divine Soul on the Contemporary Left."

Photo Credit: New York Times

*******

UPDATE: See also, "The Official Grave Dancing Thread for Jesse Helms":

There’s little that a good, progressive thinking person on the Internet likes more than the death of a conservative.

UPDATE II: For more examples of the grave dancing, see:

* AmericaBlog, "Racist, Homophobe Jesse Helms is Dead."
* Carpetbagger Report, "Former Sen. Jesse Helms Dies at Age 86" (the comments in particular).
* Comments From Left Field, "Jesse Helms Departs (Finally)."
* Down With Tyranny, "Happy Fourth of July."
* The Impolitic, "Jesse Helms: Dead at Last."
* Martini Revolution, "Jesse Helms Dead" (which included the lead, "Good f**king riddance").
* Matthew Yglesias, "The Dead."
* Orcinus, "Goodbye, and Good Riddance."
* TBogg, "Hell Gets a Little More Crowded.
* Whiskey Fire, "Bastard of an Ex-Warhorse Kicks."

These are the most disrespectful posts at Memeorandum.

Yglesias begins his entry stating, "I've never been 100 percent clear on why you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead..."

I think common decency might provide a clue.

At least Pam Spaulding gets it.

Obama Tax Pledge, Largest in History, Threatens Liberty

When Thomas Jefferson and his founding allies set forth the Declaration of Independence, they decried the authoritarianism of King George III, for "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."

Since 1776, questions of individual liberty have always surrounded proposals to increase taxes on Americans.

So far this election season, the question of taxes has held a backseat to foreign policy and social issues, but with Barack Obama pledging to increase Social Security taxes by $1.3 trillion over the next decade, perhaps the country should start having a larger debate on freedom and the scope of governmental power.

Investor's Business Daily points to the importance of this debate, in its editorial, "Obama's Social Insecurity Plan":

We suspected that the No. 1 liberal in the U.S. Senate would get around to playing the granny card as he shook Hillary off and focused on John McCain. That moment came in Gresham, Ore., on Sunday when he promised to protect "the promise that FDR made" and "preserve the Social Security Trust Fund." He warned that McCain would raise the retirement age and privatize Social Security a la President Bush.

How does he demagogue the issue?

[...]

Obama would save grandma and grandpa by bankrupting their grandchildren. He has proposed lifting the tax cap on earnings subject to the 12.4% Social Security tax, which now covers only the first $102,000.

As George Will points out, a "Chicago police officer married to a Chicago public-school teacher, each with 20 years on the job, have a household income of $147,501, so you (Obama) would take another $5,642 from them."

As Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out, eliminating the cap would be the largest tax increase in American history — some $1.3 trillion over the first 10 years.

"It would give the United States," Tanner says, "one of the highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, with the potential for seriously disrupting economic growth."

The Heritage Foundation analyzed the effect of eliminating the earnings cap. Heritage found that the take-home pay of 10.3 million workers would be reduced by an average of $5,650 in the first year alone. Taxes would be raised on four million workers over the age of 50.

Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners who file their taxes as individuals. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion.

And if you think this would raise taxes only on the "rich," think again. According to Heritage, taxes would be raised for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 postsecondary teachers and 237,000 dentists. That would make a lot of people bitter.

Eliminating the earnings cap as Obama wants would raise taxes for many middle-class families, impose a huge burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs. You don't help the people riding the wagon by punishing the people pulling it. But Obama would.

See also, "Obama: Raise Social Security Taxes."

Image Credit: Michael Ramirez

Obama Should Stress Patriotism, Poll Finds

Gallup finds a large majority of Americans valuing traditional conceptions of patriotism, including service in the military. The findings imply that Barack Obama should work harder in stressing bedrock notions of love of country:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans (62%) say serving in the U.S. military reveals "a great deal" about one's patriotism, ranking it second only to voting in elections among six items rated in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. More than half of Americans (53%) say the same about reciting the pledge of allegiance, and far fewer about wearing an American flag pin.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent much of this Independence Day week trying to assure voters of his patriotism, having been faulted during the Democratic primary season for at times not wearing an American flag pin, and for not placing his hand over his heart during the national anthem on at least one occasion. Obama's speech on Monday, entitled "The America We Love," included praise for Republican rival John McCain's service to his country in Vietnam, in response to retired Gen. Wesley Clark's statement that McCain's experience as a Navy pilot and prisoner of war does not necessarily qualify him to be commander in chief.

McCain's service in Vietnam is generally considered an advantage in this wartime election against Obama, who has never served in the military, and a key reason 80% of Americans see McCain as capable of handling the responsibilities of commander in chief. The Gallup data reveal that Americans do in fact consider military service in general to be a sign of patriotism. While Republicans are among the most likely of all groups to say serving in the military reveals a great deal about one's patriotism, more than half of both Democrats and independents agree. Republicans also tend to place more value on saying the pledge of allegiance and wearing an American flag pin, while independents align more closely with Democrats, who are generally less likely to place a high value on each action.

It's interesting that few Democrats - less than 50 percent - favor the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag is an important statement of patiotism.

Gallup's conclusions are important in this regard:

The fact that Americans do consider serving in the U.S. military highly patriotic makes it difficult for the Obama campaign to criticize McCain on that score. Americans' views on patriotism suggest that it would be of greater benefit for Obama to reinforce his own patriotism through other acts Americans value. While it is clear that a small symbolic act like wearing a flag pin is not nearly as significant a sign of patriotism as acts such as voting and serving in the military, the fact that about 6 in 10 Americans say wearing such a pin is at least a moderate sign of patriotism suggests it certainly can't hurt.

See also, Rightwing Nuthouse, "Do Liberals Love America Too?"

A Most Fortunate People

Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of our great bounty as Americans on this Independence Day:

On this Fourth of July of our discontent — with spiraling fuel prices, a sluggish economy, a weak dollar, mounting foreign and domestic debt, continuing costs in Iraq, a falling stock market, and a mortgage crisis — we should remember two truths about America. First, the United States remains the most free and affluent country in the history of civilization. Second, almost all our problems are lapses of complacency, remain relatively easily correctable, and pale in comparison to past crises.

By almost any barometer, the United States remains the most fortunate country in the world. We continue to be the primary destination of immigrants, who risk their lives to have a chance at what we take for granted. Few in contrast are flocking to China, Russia, or India. The catalyst for immigration is primarily a phenomenon of word of mouth, of comparative talking among friends and families about the reality of modern-day living, not of scholarly perusal of social or economic statistics.

When one compares any yardstick of material wealth — the number of cars, the square footage of living space, the number of consumer appurtenances — Americans are the wealthiest people in the history of civilization. Why so? Others have more iron ore, as much farmland, greater populations, and far more oil reserves. But uniquely in America there remains a system of merit, under which we prosper or fail to a greater extent on the basis of talent, not tribal affiliations, petty bribes, or institutionalized insider help. More importantly still, we are impressed by those who advance rather than envious of their success. The lobster-barrel mentality is a human trait, but in the United States uniquely there is a culture of emulation rather than of resentment, which explains why neither Marxism nor aristocratic pretension ever became fully entrenched in America.

Our system of government remains the most stable and free.

There's more at the link, but the conclusion's excellent:

Given the strength of our system and culture and our inherited values and wealth, as long as we don’t tamper with our Constitution, a uniquely American entrepreneurial culture, and the melting-pot notion of shared values rather than balkanized tribes, races, and religions, we can easily rectify our present mistakes without much reduction in our soaring standard of living. In America alone — for all our periodic hysterical self-recrimination — there is still comparatively little danger of coups, nationalization of foreign assets, crippling national strikes, sectarian violence, terrorism, suppression of free speech, or rampant government and judicial corruption that elsewhere lead to endemic violence and economic stagnation.

On this troubled Fourth we still should remember this is not 1776 when New York was in British hands and Americans in retreat across the state. It is not 1814 when the British burned Washington and the entire system of national credit collapsed — or July 4, 1864 when Americans awoke to news that 8,000 Americans had just been killed at Gettysburg.

We are not in 1932 when unemployment was still over 20 percent of the work force, and industrial production was less than half of what it had been just three years earlier, or July, 1942, when tens of thousands of American were dying in convoys and B-17s, and on islands of the Pacific in an existential war against Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Thank God it is not mid-summer 1950, when Seoul was overrun and arriving American troops were overwhelmed by Communist forces as they rushed in to save a crumbling South Korea. We are not in 1968 when the country was torn apart by the Tet Offensive, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, and the riots at the Democratic convention in Chicago. And we are not even in the waning days of 1979, a year in which the American embassy was seized in Tehran and hostages taken, the Soviets were invading Afghanistan, thousands were still being murdered in Cambodia, Communism was on the march in Central America, and our president was blaming our near 6-percent unemployment, 8-percent inflation, 15-percent interest rates, and weakening international profile on our own collective “malaise.”

We live in the most prosperous and most free years of a wonderful republic, and can easily rectify our present crises that are largely of our own making and a result of the stupefying effects of our unprecedented wealth and leisure. Instead of endless recriminations and self-pity — of anger that our past was merely good rather than perfect as we now demand — we need to give thanks this Fourth of July to our ancestors who created our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and suffered miseries beyond our comprehension as they bequeathed to us most of the present wealth, leisure, and freedom we take for granted.

That's a great message.

Happy Fourth of July!!