By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/29/07

I was moved to tears visiting the Moving Wall, the transportable Vietnam War Memorial this week. It is truly a humbling experience to see the very personal nature of the Memorial listing by name the men and women who involuntarily gave their lives in a cause that was noble, stemming the tide of encroaching Communism, but was managed ineffectually by politicians.

As striking as it is to visually and emotionally process the names of 58,000 American soldiers who died in that undeclared war, I can’t even imagine what it would be like to see a comparable walled memorial for the million to million and a half Vietnamese who died after the U.S. withdrew from that theater. To the people of Vietnam the collapse of the South Vietnamese regime had to have been absolutely catastrophic. To the people of the United States, that should have been a tremendous blow to our collective conscience. Communism was eventually defeated gratefully without major bloodletting by American soldiers, although continued civilian losses behind the Iron Curtain may be incalculable.

As seen in Vietnam, American foreign policy has not only been driven by national security concerns, but by altruism. The United States through its military strength has freed more people worldwide from oppression and tyranny than any other nation in the history of the world. And unlike previous world powers or what some among us would have us believe, we don’t do it for empire building or colonial purposes. The best thing that can happen to a country is to be a battle zone for America, for not only do we get rid of the nefarious and bellicose elements in a country, but we rebuild the country and leave it in better shape than what we found it in.

Today, we have an elite, well-trained force in Iraq that is not only trying to stabilize a country that is infused with terrorists, but protect our country by eradication of those insurgents who could otherwise be planning attacks against us here at home. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, in an interview last week said that during exercises in Kosovo that the special forces would conduct a tactical mission and they’d “feed off that for months.” He said now they may have a dozen elaborate, sophisticated special forces missions going on every night that are increasingly successful in disrupting the flow of weaponry from Iran and decimating the Al Qaida leadership of the terrorists.

I hold in contempt those who ascribe evil to our military men and women. Those who are so quick to condemn purported actions of impropriety and inhumanity against those whom we’re striving to provide protection for in pursuit of their freedom. I disdain those who jumped on the mass media bandwagon of condemnation of those soldiers who served in Haditha a year ago, charged with murdering men, women and children wantonly. As the evidence has been gathered and examined it appears that the forensic evidence and the moment by moment narrative of an intelligence officer who was on the scene will likely clear the charges against the Marines involved in the infamous Haditha incident. The whole situation, with the mass media leading the charge, is very similar to the Duke lacrosse rape case, where because the accusations fit the media’s model of white on black crime, the accused were not just accused; they were tried, found guilty, and sentenced by the media before the case was even underway. Likewise, the media have attempted to do the same with the Marines involved in the Haditha incident since the accusations fit their model of evil military stereotyping.

Coincidentally, there is ample motivation for the families of those killed at Haditha to claim the casualties were non-combatant civilians. The Government gives $2,500 to every family of an innocent killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.

We have the most moral and conscientious military perhaps in the history of the world. There is literally as much training in avoiding “collateral damage,” both in terms of infrastructure and human life through Rules of Engagement and Escalation of Force, as there is in pursuing, apprehending, and engaging the enemy. In reality, our military personnel are more at risk since they have the protection of innocents so firmly ingrained into their training. As a nation, and as represented by our military in the theater, we believe in the sanctity of life. We expect the best from our military, and we get it. Why else would the very rare exception like Mi Lai be such a shock to our collective conscience? Come to think about it, since our military is an all volunteer force, the mass media should praise and lionize them like they do illegal aliens them since they are willing to do jobs that other Americans are not willing to do!

I’m convinced that part of being a good American, even a patriotic American, is believing enough in our country, it’s leaders, it’s military, and it’s citizens, that we believe and hope for the best of our country. That instead of assuming all is wrong, or all are guilty of purported crimes, that we assume competency, propriety, and innocence until proven guilty. Accusations do not a case for execution make.

There are few similarities between the Vietnam conflict and the current operation in Iraq. But the biggest one would be literally created by us if we leave prior to completing the task of stabilizing that nascent democracy and a literal bloodbath ensued because of the vacuum left by our withdrawal. By the way, next time someone tries to tell you that Iraq is a failure, tell them that 7 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are now totally under the control of the Iraqi government. It seems much more logical to me to finish the job now rather than returning sometime down the road when the situation is much, much worse. And next time you see a soldier, thank them for their service. After all, they are the ones who continue to pay the price for our freedom and security. They did in Vietnam as memorialized with the Moving Wall, and they continue to do it today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/08/07

Does “diversity,” as defined by the education establishment based on racial quotas, sufficiently ameliorate the educational and social environment in a school to warrant student busing? Is diversity an end in itself that outweighs all other academic and social considerations? And are inconveniences of distance imposed on students and families an acceptable price to pay for the sake of “diversity?” This series of questions have not been of as great a concern to Eastern Idaho as they obviously have been elsewhere in more urban settings, but they still may have relevance to us.

The diversity debate was fuelled again last week by a Supreme Court ruling against the Seattle school district and the Jefferson County (KY) Board of Education. Seattle never implemented school segregation, and Louisville, which had it, must, according to the Supreme Court, stop using race in determining which schools children are to attend to achieve racial quotas for enrollment. In short, those school districts were using race to ensure “diversity” among their student populations; and the Court ruled that this violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection to individuals.

The Seattle school district apparently self-imposed their desegregation in the name of diversity. They were striving to achieve a “mix” of 31% to 50% white students in their schools and forcing kids to go to schools much farther away from their homes in order to achieve that mix.

Seattle’s objectives were driven by their desire to achieve diversity. Their race-conscious “diversity” project was devised by administrators and school board members who proclaimed on their own website that “having a future time orientation, emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology and defining one form of English as standard constitute cultural racism and institutional racism and arises from unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality.” That sounds more like social engineering by a group of Freudian psychologists than it does a practical methodology in managing school enrollment.

It seems to me that those school districts trying to force diversity based on race were playing the ultimate race card. Although they would undoubtedly argue that they don’t stereotype, their assertion that diversity is achieved by racial desegregation does just that: it stereotypes minorities in such a way that “diversity” occurs only when races are mixed for educational purposes!

Last week’s Supreme Court split decision seems to be much closer to what has been intended by civil rights leaders over the years. Martin Luther King’s correct conviction that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” seems to be supported by this decision. Even back in 1954 when the desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education, was heard by the Court, Thurgood Marshall stated that “distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere.”

Perhaps the most striking statement in the decision came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who, writing the majority decision, stated “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” That seems to me a self-evident truth, and much more viable than some pre-conceived notion of an ethereal, nonqualified, misconceived concept of “diversity” achieved through a disguised form of racism.

Even justice Kennedy, in siding with the majority, stated that, “Preferment by race, when resorted to by the state, can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within it the potential to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued an insightful warning in his opinion concurring with the Court’s ruling. He warned of elites eager to constitutionalize “faddish social theories.” Those theories are often unsupported by empirical evidence, and seem to have a goal more of appearing esoteric than of actually improving the educational experience.

Chief Justice Roberts strengthened that argument further when he observed that the school districts offered no evidence that the diversity they had achieved (by what he called the “sordid business of divvying us up by race”) is necessary to achieve the asserted educational benefits.

Not surprisingly, every one of the Democrat presidential hopefuls denounced the decision as a reversal of the landmark 1954 Brown case. In light of the rationale employed by the court in this decision, it should appear obvious to all that it’s more important to them to pander to minority voters and to appear non-racist than to actually be non-racist. Truly that was the ultimate form of pandering for they made their objections at the debate on the campus of Howard University in D.C. which has a nearly 100% black enrollment.

Meanwhile, the decision is being hailed by members of the Project 21 black leadership network as “a necessary step in breaking down existing racial resentment and promoting true equal access to educational opportunity. It’s refreshing that the Supreme Court decided race-based admission standards are unconstitutional,” said Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli. “Racial quotas are harmful because they reinforce resentment towards minorities and increase racial tensions. Parental judgment and educational needs should be the basis for choosing what schools children should attend.”

This case affords us an opportunity to reflect on some of the social engineering that is attempted not only by school districts but by governmental and private entities. Things are not always what they are purported to be. In an effort to achieve “diversity,” these school districts were engaging in stereotypical racism, not because they really accomplished anything, but because it must have “felt right” to them. Rather than adhering to the traditional notion of e pluribus unum, “from many, one,” they seem to espouse the Al Gore doctrine, “from one, many” with their distorted notion of diversity.

As a “melting pot” society, the United States has the most diverse cultural and racial composition of any nation on earth. As such, diversity is achieved by definition. Further attempts to force diversity through race-based social experimentation is destructive to society, and destructive to individuals. This court decision should please everyone who has an interest in seeing America become even more of a color-blind society.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 07/01/07

Patriotism seems to be a dying trait of 21^st century Americans. There was a time not long ago when in spite of ideological differences, the common glue holding our nation, society, and culture together was a grateful acknowledgement of the greatness of America; a realization that we were a unique nation founded upon eternal principles recognizing the equality of man because of our God-given inalienable rights. I pine for that day.

Think back to how the nation coalesced for a time after the attack at Pearl Harbor, or even more recently, after the attacks of 9/11. As a nation we were unified with a love of country and a determination to overcome all obstacles and enemies that stood in the way of our perpetuity as a free and prospering nation. Flags, patriotic bumper stickers, and unifying messages on signs and placards were virtually omnipresent. That unity is natural when we feel we are at risk and fighting for our survival.

I would submit that we are still fighting for our survival, and the risks are no less onerous or menacing now than they were six years ago. But even more than extrinsic threats to our physical existence, the divisiveness so prevalent amongst us today threatens us internally, even at the very heart of our nation.

There is nothing “cool” or erudite about hating America. It may indicate some deep psychological maladies, but it’s far from “cool.” Not only is it possible to love America and all she stands for while being critical of politicians and policy, but I think that’s what’s meant by dissent being the ultimate form of patriotism: a devotion to America and a commitment to her perpetuity so great that we speak out in opposition to those policies that we’re convinced challenges the role of America as an ensign of freedom to the world.

It seems that too many Americans confuse patriotism with nationalism. Patriotism is a commitment to vigorously support ones country with a concomitant determination to defend it and make it better, whereas nationalism is an extreme form of patriotism that connotes a complete acquiescence to national authority regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. When one blames their country and its leaders for all that is wrong in the world, they have crossed the line and their “patriotism” is certainly suspect and worthy of being questioned.

Patriotism should abound as we celebrate the birthday of our beloved America. For such patriotism acknowledges the uniqueness of our humble beginnings, based on eternal principles, not on the whims of monarchs, tyrants, or a government “grant” of rights and privileges.

We recognize that for the first time in history, a nation was created by people, for people, based on a series of principles and tenets recognized to be God-given, not government bestowed. As James Madison said regarding the patriots who fought for freedom from England, “Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.”

For the first time in history, a group of agrarian subjects united to throw off the tyranny of their monarch, and establish a new nation founded in the notion that rights are not simply granted by the ruler, but by God. That since those rights were granted by God, they were inalienable, meaning that they were unable to be separated, surrendered, or transferred. And that among those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our national uniqueness makes the celebration of our nation’s birth a most consequential event. Attempts at imitation have and will be made, but nothing approximates the uniqueness of the founding of the United States of America.

Because of this fact, freedom loving people throughout the world should celebrate the 4^th of July as the model of triumph of individual liberty over tyranny, freedom over despotism, and individual self-worth over the value of the state.

Even those who engage in national self-loathing, lamenting America as the cause of all the world’s grief, must recognize the power behind a country founded on the principle that for a government of free people to be legitimate, its powers must be derived from the consent of the governed.

Thomas Jefferson, arguably the preeminent liberal of the western hemisphere, is affectionately referred to as the father of “American exceptionalism.” This acknowledges the unequalled greatness of our country because of its unique origins, national credo, historical evolution, and distinctive political and religious institutions, and of America’s qualitative dissimilarity from all other nations. It is not arrogance to claim greatness in this young republic; it is historical and empirical fact. Our Declaration reduced government from master to servant for the first time in history.

Our United States of America is not perfect. No temporal entity operated by man can be, yet the principles upon which this country is founded are divine in nature, and the resulting government by and for the people, the best on earth.

Patriotism is not a matter of waving a flag, but is rather manifest in how we talk of America, and how we treat her and her citizens. Adlai Stevenson admonished us that our patriotism should not be “short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.”

In this context, to be true patriots, we don’t just fly our flag on the 4^th of July, but we live lives of dedication to preserving this land, and passing it on to later generations in better condition than we received it from our forbearers. We don’t litter, we don’t abuse the earth, we protect the civil and religious liberties guaranteed by our Constitution, and we profess our convictions of the principles upon which our country was founded, and then live and speak in such a way as to outwardly manifest such patriotism.

We were blessed to witness patriotism in its purest form Friday night at Ann Loveland’s “Anthems of America” pageant at the Stephens Performing Arts Center. The imagery, the messages of hope, gratitude, and commitment coupled with outstanding music truly inspired all who attended. Thank you, Ann, for that timely and appropriate injection of patriotic fervor and gratitude. We are better citizens for having been there.

We have much to rejoice in as we celebrate America’s 231^st birthday. May we display everyday, not just on the 4^th of July, the patriotism merited by this great country. Not just the superficial outward manifestations like bumper stickers and flags on our front porch, but the profound respect, love, and devotion to a country founded on freedom and individual liberty; the very uniqueness of our one national under God.