June 23, 2013

The goofiness of fringe groups and agitators continues to creep toward the mainstream. The latest converts are three New Hampshire legislators who introduced a bill to have the state "recognize" the "original 13th Amendment to the Constitution." There was in fact a proposed amendment which would have become the Thirteenth if it had been ratified. It was passed by Congress in 1810, and submitted to the states, but it never was ratified by the required three-fourths of the states. It provided as follows:

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.[50]

The issue of divided loyalty by way of foreign offices or benefits already had been covered by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 9.:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

It isn’t clear why anyone thought that the amendment was necessary, and in any case, it is a dead letter except among anti-statists, who concoct bizarre theories about its suppression which involve the claims that the United States was converted into a corporation in 1871 (or 1860 or 1861 or 1865 or 1868), that IRS (or is it the Federal Reserve?) is a foreign banking cartel, and on and on. (I discussed these notions on 4/5/10, 4/7/10 and 5/28/10). Here’s the version of that tale included in the New Hampshire bill:

III. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 . . . created a corporation in the District of Columbia called the United States of America. The act . . . led to adoption of a fraudulent constitution in which the original Thirteenth Amendment was omitted.

IV. Today, what appears to the public as the United States Constitution is not the complete document, as it was never lawfully amended to remove the Thirteenth Amendment. Instead, the document presented as the United States Constitution is merely a mission statement for the corporation unlawfully established in the Act of 1871.[51]

The operative section of the bill states that its purpose is to recognize that the original Thirteenth Amendment, "which prohibits titles of nobility, is properly included in the United States Constitution and is the law of the land."

V. . . . The act is also intended to end the infiltration of the Bar Association and the judicial branch into the executive and legislative branches of government and the unlawful usurpation of the people’s right, guaranteed by the New Hampshire constitution, to elect county attorneys who are not members of the bar. This unlawful usurpation gives the judicial branch control over all government and the people in the grand juries. As long as the original Thirteenth Amendment is concealed from the people, there shall never be justice or a legitimate constitutional form of government.

Thirteenthers have two aims in reviving the "lost" amendment: to remove President Obama from office because he received the Nobel Peace Prize and, as shown by the New Hampshire bill, to exclude lawyers from all public offices, including judgeships, because they sometimes are referred to as "Esquire" which, allegedly, is a foreign (British) title. Some support that notion by claiming that "bar," referring to lawyers, stands for British Accreditation Registry (or Royalty or Regency). Here’s one entertaining version: "I do have sound reason to believe that "BAR" in BAR Association stands for "British Accreditation Regency" and that all attorneys are knights for the British or Royal Crown. After all, behind every attorney's name is the title "Esquire" which is a British term."[52] I don’t recall that anyone ever called me Sir Gerald.

One of the sponsors is Rep. Stella Tremblay.[53] This is not her first foray into the anti-government fantasy world. Last year, she sent an email to every member of the state House of Representatives containing a video that claimed that President Obama was not born in the United States. This year, she treated her colleagues to an email claiming that the federal government was behind the Boston Marathon bombing,[54] parroting that allegation by Alex Jones.

One of the sillier notions entertained by those who fear or despise the government is that we still are ruled by Britain. One David Johnson, "who advises Tremblay on historical matters," believes that the U.S. "is now under the control of Queen Elizabeth II."[55] If we have no legitimate Constitution, and it isn’t restored via adopting the lost 13th, where would we look for a statement of fundamentals? Three other New Hampshire legislators addressed that a year or so ago, in a manner consistent with Mr. Johnson’s delusion; their bill would have required that “All members of the general court [Legislature] proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived.”[56]

______________________
50. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
51. http://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB638/id/719435
52. http://www.dhealthstore.com/articles/law-legal/blacks-law-dictionary.html
53. She abruptly resigned from the Legislature a few days ago.
54. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/stella-tremblay-new-hampshire_n_ 3466760.html
55. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/stella-tremblay_n_2791098.html
56. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01/04/397520/new-hampshire-gop-bill-mandates- that-laws-find-their-origin-in-1215-english-magna-carta/

June 17, 2013

Newspapers are in a sad state. One of their problems is that their print editions must compete with their web versions. Offering the latter free of charge only exacerbates the tendency of readers to opt for getting news on line. For that reason, digital subscriptions are in vogue. The New York Times requires a subscription to access more than ten articles a month. The Washington Post has announced that it soon will charge for access beyond twenty per month. (That number may not hold; the Times initially allowed twenty). I learned belatedly that The Seattle Times has adopted a similar policy, permitting "about" fifteen free hits per month. As we subscribe to the newspaper, that doesn’t affect us.

Various factors other than self-competition have contributed to the decline of print journalism. The trend toward on-line reading is reenforced by mobile devices, and fewer people care about news in any form. Costs of operation no doubt have increased and advertisers have options other than papers. Whatever the cause, The Seattle Times is a poor copy of its former self, even though, with the demise of the P-I, it now has no local print competition.

Presumably due to the cost of syndicated columns, the Times op-ed pages now are dominated by staff and guest writers. There have been some good columns, but the result overall is unimpressive. On June 7, the page reached a new low by including a guest column by a young woman who, after moving to Seattle, has had trouble getting a date, and blames that on timid Seattle males. However, this evidently wasn’t just space-filling; the Times invited us to enter into a dialogue by on-line chat over this burning issue, and those who couldn’t make the chat could respond to a poll asking whether they agree with her opinions. The Times probably thinks that it is reaching young readers with this nonsense.

The paper redeemed itself in part by printing on the facing page a house editorial on the recent revelations of domestic spying. Although many people have expressed opinions — covering a wide range — about the surveillance programs, it’s impossible to take many of those reactions, or the government’s statements, seriously, because all of this still largely is secret. The Times focused on that fact. It’s worth setting out its observations almost in full.

A FEDERAL document reveals a program called PRISM that scoops up email, chats, videos, photos, stored data, Internet phone calls, file transfers, video conferences and logins from nine different Internet providers. . . .

President Obama says, "There are a whole bunch of safeguards involved" in what the government did. Should we believe him? Skepticism is in order here.

The program was secret. And when the president says it does not involve reading "the emails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents," how sure are we of that? Not nearly enough. . . .  

Has Congress been a check on the executive power? No. Have the courts? Not in this instance, which involves a tribunal in which there never is an opposing counsel and which operates in secret. How often does this court ever say "no"? . . . 

How does this square with "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? The Fourth Amendment seems to define a lawful search entirely in terms of what PRISM is not. 

Two years ago, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., asked Attorney General Eric Holder the still-salient question: How can the people judge a program when they are not told what it is? . . .
The essence of the Constitution is power constrained by law. We are looking for the constraint and not seeing it.

The editorial added a more general comment, one which many of us would echo:

This page supported Barack Obama. So did the voters of Washington. Obama was for "change." But on the matter of secret killing by aerial drone, on detention without trial at Guantánamo, and now on the mass interception of mail by the national security state, where is the change?

June 17, 2013


Newspapers are in a sad state. One of their problems is that their print editions must compete with their web versions. Offering the latter free of charge only exacerbates the tendency of readers to opt for getting news on line. For that reason, digital subscriptions are in vogue. The New York Times requires a subscription to access more than ten articles a month. The Washington Post has announced that it soon will charge for access beyond twenty per month. (That number may not hold; the Times initially allowed twenty). I learned belatedly that The Seattle Times has adopted a similar policy, permitting "about" fifteen free hits per month. As we subscribe to the newspaper, that doesn’t affect us.

Various factors other than self-competition have contributed to the decline of print journalism. The trend toward on-line reading is reenforced by mobile devices, and fewer people care about news in any form. Costs of operation no doubt have increased and advertisers have options other than papers. Whatever the cause, The Seattle Times is a poor copy of its former self, even though, with the demise of the P-I, it now has no local print competition.

Presumably due to the cost of syndicated columns, the Times op-ed pages now are dominated by staff and guest writers. There have been some good columns, but the result overall is unimpressive. On June 7, the page reached a new low by including a guest column by a young woman who, after moving to Seattle, has had trouble getting a date, and blames that on timid Seattle males. However, this evidently wasn’t just space-filling; the Times invited us to enter into a dialogue by on-line chat over this burning issue, and those who couldn’t make the chat could respond to a poll asking whether they agree with her opinions. The Times probably thinks that it is reaching young readers with this nonsense.

The paper redeemed itself in part by printing on the facing page a house editorial on the recent revelations of domestic spying. Although many people have expressed opinions — covering a wide range — about the surveillance programs, it’s impossible to take many of those reactions, or the government’s statements, seriously, because all of this still largely is secret. The Times focused on that fact. It’s worth setting out its observations almost in full.

A FEDERAL document reveals a program called PRISM that scoops up email, chats, videos, photos, stored data, Internet phone calls, file transfers, video conferences and logins from nine different Internet providers.

***

President Obama says, "There are a whole bunch of safeguards involved" in what the government did. Should we believe him? Skepticism is in order here.

The program was secret. And when the president says it does not involve reading "the emails of U.S. citizens and U.S. residents," how sure are we of that? Not nearly enough. . . .


Has Congress been a check on the executive power? No. Have the courts? Not in this instance, which involves a tribunal in which there never is an opposing counsel and which operates in secret. How often does this court ever say "no"? . . .


How does this square with "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? The Fourth Amendment seems to define a lawful search entirely in terms of what PRISM is not.


Two years ago, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Udall, D-Colo., asked Attorney General Eric Holder the still-salient question: How can the people judge a program when they are not told what it is?

***

The essence of the Constitution is power constrained by law. We are looking for the constraint and not seeing it.

The editorial added a more general comment, one which many of us would echo:

This page supported Barack Obama. So did the voters of Washington. Obama was for "change." But on the matter of secret killing by aerial drone, on detention without trial at Guantánamo, and now on the mass interception of mail by the national security state, where is the change?

June 10, 2013
Having been entertained by friends in England who enjoy wine, we thought that we would send them some Washington wine as a thank-you. We tried to order Washington wine in London for delivery, only to find that the English haven’t discovered us. They have some limited acquaintance with California and with — oh, the insult — Oregon, but not with us, so we sent French and Italian.

However, in one way Washington is famous, or perhaps notorious. The bartender at a café at Heathrow knew about the recent bridge collapse, knew that it is north of Seattle, on I-5, over the Skagit (pronounced with broad a and hard g) River. Wonderful; we’re known for the failure of our infrastructure.

When we returned, I found a column in The Seattle Times by Danny Westneat addressing reactions to the incident: "Last week I wondered if the collapse of an I-5 bridge might jar us to fix up our deteriorating old infrastructure. Or if we would crouch back into our played-out ‘no new taxes’ political torpor. The torpor it is." As he noted, and to no one’s surprise, Tim Eyman was appalled that some Democrats in the Legislature suggested that we raise funds to deal with vulnerable bridges, or in his terms, were "ghoulishly, crassly, exploitatively, and predictably demanding the Legislature unilaterally raise taxes . . . "[46] By "unilaterally," he means without a referendum; so much for representative (efficient, effective) government.

The excuse for continued neglect is that the bridge collapsed because a truck clipped one of its supports, so it’s just an unforseen event. Eyman again: " An accident is an accident and it's kind of hard to peg that on anybody else except the driver of a big truck driving at 15 feet on a 14 foot bridge. There's clearly a lot of people that are trying to exploit this bridge accident in order to push tax increases."[47]

Westneat also quoted two Republican legislators to the effect that no action is needed, even though there are many "structurally deficient" bridges in the state.[48] One of the legislators seemed outraged that there would be any response; here’s his muddled analysis: "What a joke. I said it last night when I saw the news [of the collapse, apparently]. I said, this is going to be [Governor] Inslee standing on the grandstand and saying, ‘See, this is why we need to pass the transportation package,’ and then the rest of the country will start saying look, our infrastructure is collapsing. But you could strike a brand-new bridge with a semi-truck and it will come down. I am just beside myself about how idiotic we have become."[49] In other words, if the Governor points out that collapsing bridges call for remedial action, that’s merely political posturing; having the country take note of our inability to provide safe transportation is no big deal.

The notion that we ought to build bridges that don’t fall down when bumped (not, apparently, a rare occurrence) is as foreign to him as to Eyman. The idiocy lies in sacrificing public safety on the altar of tax avoidance.

Westneat ended with this observation: "I have never bought the left-wing line that Republicans actually want government to fail. But they don’t seem to be trying all that hard to make it work." There is ample evidence that many Republicans want government to fail, or at least to shrink to the point of insignificance, but he’s certainly right that this is good example at least of indifference to making it work.
___________________________
46. http://mynorthwest.com/?sid=2281751&nid=651
47. http://mynorthwest.com/646/2283862/Antitax-crusader-says-blaming-him-for-I5-bridge-collapse-is-ghoulish-and-crass  
48. http://blogs.asce.org/govrel/2013/05/21/washington-state-report-card-released-today/  
49. http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/inslee-warned-of-minnesota-style-freeway-bridge-collapse-on-monday-just-before-i-5-disaster/  

April 21, 2013

"Don't be cross, uncle!" said the nephew.
"What else can I be," returned the uncle, "when I live in such a world of fools as this?"
Dickens, A Christmas Carol

I wouldn’t offer Scrooge — the early, unrepentant one — as a model, but in this exchange with his nephew Fred, he sums up the present situation rather well: we’re surrounded by fools.

Recently a friend forwarded a video entitled "Send in the Clowns," containing clips of famous comedians. It’s funny and nostalgic, but the title also is a perfect description of contemporary politics.

We have a glut of guns, which are available, thanks to a lack of background checks, to any nut who wants to work out his maladjustment in violence. Do we consult with sensible voices? No! We send in the clowns: Wayne La Pierre and his Senatorial stooges, four of whom pretend to be Democrats. The Senate as an institution qualifies as a clown act. It has allowed a procedural device, the filibuster, to be converted into the requirement of sixty votes to pass any bill, thus handing the minority a painless method of exercising a veto. The result is that background checks on gun purchases, supported by an overwhelming majority of citizens, are rejected. That would be foolish enough at any time, but in the aftermath of Newtown, it is difficult to believe and impossible to accept.

One of the louder fools, Alex Jones, did his bit to bury the lesson of Newtown. He did so by adding that crime to his long list of imaginary federal-government conspiracies: [43] in the strange world he inhabits, the "illegitimate criminal government . . . probably staged this event." He now has done the same for the Boston Marathon bombing: it is a "false flag" operation, one perpetrated by the government, apparently using Navy Seals as bombers.[44] His theory is that the government staged the killings so that it could confiscate guns. Jones argues that we "need guns to protect ourselves from criminals, crazy people and this corrupt foreign occupation government." (The last apparently refers to his notion that the government is an arm of "offshore New World Order bankers," and that "globalists are trying to conquer us.") His reference to crazy people is deeply ironic; watching him scream and threaten [45] would convince any viewer that he is the last person on earth who should have access to firearms.

Another tribe huddled around its campfire, fearing the next attack of the feds, goes by the clan name Tenther. They demand that states nullify federal laws, often in aid of guns, but also to prevent health care. Like so many of the foolish, they live in a partly imaginary past, any real aspect of which vanished in the 1860s.

Millions watch Fox "News" and follow its inane lead. Glenn Beck was the perfect Fox pundit, having described himself as a rodeo clown.

The President at times joins the ranks of the foolish. His attempts to compromise with the House GOP fall in that category: usually they fail and when they succeed he gives away too much. It’s fun to imagine Lyndon Johnson dealing with the nitwits in the House or Harry Truman running against the do-nothing Congress.

Americans often take matters a step further by being fatuous, i.e., foolishly proud, in their belief in our exceptionalism. An example is pretending that we have the best health care system, unlike the (shudder) socialist countries. A glance at any study on cost, life expectancy or infant mortality would show otherwise. Despite the increasing concentration of wealth, and therefore power, at the top, we also pride ourselves on being champions of democracy.

Bah! Humbug.

______________________________

43. A summary is here: http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/2013/04/16/alex-jones-and-his-enablers/193647. I discussed his fantasies in my post of May 30, 2010.
44. http://www.infowars.com/government-caught-in-boston-bombing-false-flag-cover-up/
45. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmSH5MREHdw ; see, especially, the diatribe beginning at 7:59.

April 10, 2013

Various observations marked the tenth anniversary, last month, of the beginning of the Iraq war, including a few qualified recantations. For example, in The Washington Post, David Ignatius offered a limited mea culpa:

Ten years ago this week, I was covering the U.S. military as it began its assault on Iraq. As I read back now over my clips, I see a few useful warnings about the difficulties ahead. But I owe readers an apology for being wrong on the overriding question of whether the war made sense.

However, in determining whether the war "made sense" he turned to secondary issues including, rather bizarrely, that the country "didn’t have the stomach for a protracted war that President George W. Bush couldn’t explain and the public didn’t understand." Bush couldn’t explain it, nor could Ignatius, because the war was, in concept as well as execution, wrong.

Another form of limited reappraisal came from Paul Farhi, who "covers the news media" for the Post, under the revealingly evasive headline "On Iraq, journalists didn’t fail. They just didn’t succeed." There were some skeptical stories, he said, which is true, but "[s]ome of these stories — too many — were not given prominence and, in the case of newspapers, didn’t make the front page." However, "it wasn’t impossible for skeptics of the war to connect the dots." Again true, but there’s the rub: in his view, it was up to the rest of us to see through the false rationales and criticize the war because the Post didn’t have the wit or courage to do so. Why? According to him it was because of "Congress’s unwillingness to stand up to the president . . . . There were no hearings that could have featured skeptical government experts disputing the official line." Also true, but is Congress’ cowardice an excuse? Apparently so; he quotes Leonard Downie Jr., the Post’s executive editor at the time: "Downie believes that no amount of media skepticism would have stopped the administration. ‘We were going to war,’ he said." It’s going to happen; why fight it? What a stirring slogan; for this we have freedom of the press?

Howard Fineman, on Huffington Post , offered this:

It began with fear and, for some journalists including me, misguided patriotism. Washington and New York, the centers of the American media, had been attacked on 9/11. We all knew, or knew of, people who had been killed. We had only one president, and as incurious and unprepared as he was, there was a natural desire to see him somehow grow in office to meet the moment.

The last comment is a variation on rallying-around, which certainly was one of the factors creating support for an illegitimately selected president of obviously limited ability. It doesn’t, though, explain the easy acceptance of the administration’s dubious arguments in favor of invading Iraq, especially as eighteen months elapsed between 9-11 and that event. Fineman noted, but did not explain, the failure: "Of course for journalists, the most patriotic thing we can do is our jobs — which meant that we all should have doubled down on skepticism and tough questions. Some did. I wish I could say that I was one of them."

"Fear" in the first sentence seems to refer to the shock of the 9-11 attacks and the concern that more might follow. However, another sort of fear affected some, as pointed out by Chris Hedges: "The war boosters, especially the ‘liberal hawks’ . . . did what they always have done: engage in acts of self-preservation. To oppose the war would have been a career killer."[39] By contrast, supporting the war had no price: Media Matters quoted pro-war statements by various pundits and noted that most of them, despite being so wrong, haven’t recanted and all still have platforms from which to offer up opinions to further mislead us.[40]

It may be too much to expect that national policy would be altered significantly by the fact that the Iraq war was unnecessary, unjustified, wasteful of lives and money, and just plain stupid. In part because coverage and commentary by the news media on the invasion of Iraq were so pro-war, the public does not even now appreciate just how wrong and disastrous it was.

Our problems did not end with the withdrawal from Iraq or the end of the term of G. W. Bush. The presidency has become even more imperial since Arthur Schlesinger so dubbed it in 1973. Congress, so assertive and conservative in domestic matters, has become passive on matters of war and peace, content to let the president wage war at will. Fears about national security, whether sound, exaggerated or imaginary, lead to extreme actions almost by default. In addition to fear, there’s the irresistible drive to be tough. As Seymour Hersh put it in The New Yorker, "Nothing succeeds in Washington like being tougher than the next guy. And woe to those who express doubt." His comment referred not only to Iraq but to the Obama administration’s policy of assassination by drone. There has been little adverse comment about that, even though American citizens are, contrary to the Constitution, included in the targets. We had secret memos authorizing torture; now we have secret memos authorizing remote-control killing.

As Hersh said, "Vietnam. And Iraq, and Afghanistan. We have a lot of anniversaries to forget." As with economics, so with war: we never seem to learn.

______________________

39. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_treason_of_the_intellectuals_20130331/

40. http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/03/19/where-are-the-medias-iraq-war-boosters-10-years/193117

April 3, 2013

At times it occurs to me that my comments are unduly harsh and negative. I tell myself that the targets deserve it, but still . . . . Recently I saw a quote from H.L. Menken, and that led me to reread the essay from which it was taken. Next to it my ramblings are the soul of restraint. Here is Menken on the state of the nation circa 1922:

It is . . . one of my firmest and most sacred beliefs, reached after an inquiry extending over a score of years and supported by incessant prayer and meditation, that the government of the United States, in both its legislative arm and its executive arm, is ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, and disgusting . . . . It is a belief no less piously cherished that the administration of justice in the Republic is stupid, dishonest, and against all reason and equity . . . .

So much for then domestic scene; what about foreign affairs?

It is another that the foreign policy of the United States — its habitual manner of dealing with other nations, whether friend or foe — is hypocritical, disingenuous, knavish, and dishonorable . . . .

The government is awful, but what about the people it so miserably serves?

[I]t is my fourth (and, to avoid too depressing a bill, final) conviction that the American people, taking one with another, constitute the most timorous, sniveling, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages . . . .[38]

And so on, for another thirty pages. Reassured that I have been, at least comparatively, moderate, measured, tolerant and respectful, I can go on.

A model for insightful, critical analysis combined with style, elegance and restraint is provided by the columns of Anthony Lewis, who passed away last week. I haven’t come across a collection of his columns and, if none has been produced, some publisher should fill the gap.

Lewis retired from The New York Times at the end of 2001, three months shy of his 75th birthday He had seen enough of the effects of 9-11 on the national psyche to recognize its dangers, many of which are still with us. Here are excerpts from his last Times column , published December 15, 2001:

No one can miss the reality of that challenge after Sept. 11. Islamic fundamentalism, rejecting the rational processes of modernity, menaces the peace and security of many societies.

But the phenomenon of religious fundamentalism is not to be found in Islam alone. Fundamentalist Christians in America, believing that the Bible's story of creation is the literal truth, question not only Darwin but the scientific method that has made contemporary civilization possible.

***

Faith in reason was the foundation stone of the United States. The men who met in Philadelphia in 1787 . . . wagered that a national government based on written rules could hold the country together.

***

Of course we have not always been faithful to the vision of the Framers. In time of war and stress, we have yielded again and again to fear. . . .

Today again fear threatens reason. Aliens are imprisoned for months on the flimsiest of grounds. The attorney general of the United States moves to punish people on the basis of secret evidence, the Kafkaesque hallmark of tyranny. . . .

***

The hard question is whether our commitment to law will survive the new sense of vulnerability that is with us all after Sept. 11. It is easy to tolerate dissent when we feel safe.

In the end I believe that faith in reason will prevail. But it will not happen automatically. Freedom under law is hard work. If rulers cannot be trusted with arbitrary power, it is up to citizens to raise their voices at injustice. The most important office in a democracy, Justice Louis Brandeis said, is the office of citizen.

I wish that I could be that optimistic. Perhaps my failing is having less trust and faith in the ability of the American people to live up to the nation’s principles and the better aspects of its history. In any case, the better outcome requires leadership, which at present is in short supply.

____________________

38.Menken, "On Being an American," in The American Scene , pp. 6-7 (essay reprinted from Prejudices: Third Series , 1922).