At the deepest level, many of these shifts, taken together, suggest that crime in the United States is falling—even through the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression—because of a big improvement in the culture. The cultural argument may strike some as vague, but writers have relied on it in the past to explain both the Great Depression's fall in crime and the explosion of crime during the sixties. In the first period, on this view, people took self-control seriously; in the second, self-expression—at society's cost—became more prevalent. It is a plausible case.

As 2010 fades into history, no living, sentient American will remember the year as anything other than the year when progressives came for the Constitution. And the same year in which the same Constitution provided for elections in the 50 states. The people exercised their constitutional right to vote many of the would-be tyrants out on their disgusting derrieres.

The shield in Cadillac's traditional shield-in-a-wreath emblem uses the actual coat of arms of the man the car was named after, Antoine Laumet de La Mothe, sieur de Cadillac, the French nobleman who founded the city of Detroit. In the upper left and lower right quadrants of the shield, there's a trio of black, duck-like birds. The official term for them in heraldry is "merlettes." Merlettes are a symbol of the Holy Trinity, and their presence in the coat of arms indicates that someone in old Antoine's family tree did something brave in one of the Crusades.

Squeaky Fromme is being paroled after serving 33 years in prison for her attempted assassination of Gerald Ford at the Capitol Building in Sacramento. I don't approve: Squeaky Fromme To Be Paroled

Lynette "Squeaky" Fromme, the waif-like Charles Manson follower who tried to shoot President Gerald Ford outside the Capitol in Sacramento in 1975, will be released from prison as early as Aug. 14, authorities said today.

Fromme, now 60, has been serving a life sentence in Texas. A federal parole board granted her parole last year, but her release was delayed because she got extra time after trying to escape from a West Virginia facility in 1987.

Northern California was not kind to Ford, as he survived a second attempted assassination just 17 days later in San Francisco. Sarah Jane Moore was also a Manson acolyte and is (I think) still in prison.

It's unclear why the Manson Family was gunning for Ford. Fromme's "insights" on the matter failed to provide much-needed clarity:

She once denounced the president in an interview with the Associated Press, saying, "If Nixon's reality, wearing a new Ford face, continues to run the country against the law, our homes will be bloodier than the Tate-LaBianca houses and My Lai put together."

Yes, kids, people used to talk like that back then. PJ O'Rourke - or maybe Dave Barry? - once joked that 21st century grandkids would have to cope with aging Baby Boomers having "Nixon fits." It seemed funny at the time, but that was before Bush Derangement Symdrome kicked in.

It's hard to imagine what Fromme is like now. She was clearly a troubled, if not disturbed, young woman who wasn't quite crazy enough to qualify for an insanity defense, although the fact that she represented herself at trial probably didn't help. Not sure why she's being paroled now. Is she sick? Is it because Ford died? Whatever it is, I sincerely hope there will be no tearful media appearances. If would-be presidential assassains can now be paroled, can we at least agree to ignore them once they're out?

Robert McNamara's death has elicited the predictable round of naval-gazing and pompous denunciations of America's misbegotten adventures in Viet Nam. McNamara has been such a lightning rod for so long, it's easy to forget that he was a Big Government liberal who served in the JFK and LBJ Administrations that gave us the New Frontier (whatever that was) and the Great Society (sadly, we know what this was). McNamara's epitaph was written decades ago, and has been all too predictable: Robert S McNamara, Architect of a Futile War, Dead at 93

Robert S. McNamara, the forceful and cerebral defense secretary who helped lead the nation into the maelstrom of Vietnam and spent the rest of his life wrestling with the war’s moral consequences, died Monday at his home in Washington. He was 93.

His wife, Diana, said Mr. McNamara died in his sleep at 5:30 a.m., adding that he had been in failing health for some time.

Mr. McNamara was the most influential defense secretary of the 20th century. Serving Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968, he oversaw hundreds of military missions, thousands of nuclear weapons and billions of dollars in military spending and foreign arms sales. He also enlarged the defense secretary’s role, handling foreign diplomacy and the dispatch of troops to enforce civil rights in the South.

“He’s like a jackhammer,” Johnson said. “No human being can take what he takes. He drives too hard. He is too perfect.”

As early as April 1964, Senator Wayne Morse, Democrat of Oregon, called Vietnam “McNamara’s War.” Mr. McNamara did not object. “I am pleased to be identified with it,” he said, “and do whatever I can to win it.” Half a million American soldiers went to war on his watch. More than 16,000 died; 42,000 more would fall in the seven years to come.

The war became his personal nightmare. Nothing he did, none of the tools at his command — the power of American weapons, the forces of technology and logic, or the strength of American soldiers — could stop the armies of North Vietnam and their South Vietnamese allies, the Vietcong. He concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life.

If you did not grow up in the Sixties, it can be very difficult to learn the history of the Viet Nam War in the same straight forward manner you may learn about WW2 or the Civil War. The excuse is always that the "passions of the era" are still too raw. The truth is that liberals have been trying to obscure their igniminious behavior throughout the War. Viet Nam was a liberal's war. They started it. Then, they waged it so poorly that we were declared to have "lost" (but, not really). And, finally, liberals were the ones who abandoned our South Vietnamese allies to their fate. The Greatest Generation liberals lost the war, while the Baby Boomer liberals burned flags to protest the war. Both groups have tried desperately to blame Nixon, Kissenger, Westmoreland, McNamara, anyone but themselves for the war's disasters. For decades after, a US soldier couldn't flick off his safety in a foreign country without Ted Kennedy, or whoever, intoning that "America cannot fight another Viet Nam." In Viet Nam, liberals were revealed to be, almost simultaneously, as bellicose and treasonous, pro-war and anti-war, sanctimoneous and sniveling.

I can remember back in 1995 when McNamara wrote his book "atoning" for his errors in conducting the war, and claiming outrageously that he hadn't thought it was winnable, even as he was leading the massive escalations that turned a police action into a land war. MacNeil/Lehrer had a panel discussion featuring, among others, John McCain and George McGovern. McCain - who, remember was one of the young men fighting the "unwinnable war" whom McNamara was supposedly wasting - was the soul of equnimity, saying that too much time had passed for him to feel any anger towards McNamara. George McGovern, meanwhile, acted like it was 1972, intoning over and over again "If I had been president..." and telling us what he would have done differently. Finally, McCain, who had been doing a slow boil, snapped, "If you had been elected president, I would still be there!" McGovern shut the hell up after that. If only we could do that everyday...

By my count, McNamara's life saw three betrayals. He betrayed the American public by waging a war so poorly that the American military - which had defeated the Japanese Empire 20 years earlier - was unable to defeat a poor country like Viet Nam. He betrayed the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought and died under his watch by announcing decades later that he never thought the war was winnable (Nixon was to prove him wrong). He betrayed our erstwhile allies in South Viet Nam by befriending the detestable General Giap late in life.

There was little in the man that was admirable. And there is little that is admirable in the people trying to bury him with the anti-war slogans of 40 years ago, rather than wonder how a "whiz kid" Big Government liberal could have gone so terribly wrong.

Today is a big day in American history: the 146th anniversary of the start of the Battle
of Gettysburg. The men who fought there knew that, for the Southern Cause at least, this was its last chance to go on the offensive and end the war. But, everything had to go perfectly and, as in any war, nothing went perfectly, especially for the Confederates.

One of the greatest questions during the campaign, and one that has been chewed over by historians and history buffs is: what happened to JEB Stuart, and why didn't Lee use the cavalry units he had available? Well, the fellows at Rantings of a Civil War Historian have come up with what may be the definitive answer. Here's just a taste: Confederate Cavalry at Gettysburg:

Stuart marched on June 25 with three brigades, Hampton, Fitz Lee, and Rooney Lee’s brigade, now commanded by Col. John R. Chambliss, Jr. of the 13th Virginia Cavalry after Rooney’s wounding at Brandy Station. Stuart gave very specific orders to Robertson that his brigade and Jones’ brigade were to guard the mountain passes until the ANV had passed, and that they were then to follow the army north into Pennsylvania. Robertson failed miserably and did not arrive in Gettysburg until the morning of July 3. Had Robertson obeyed his orders, he would have arrived in time to lead the advance of Hill’s and Longstreet’s Corps as they advanced from the direction of Chambersburg. Unfortunately, Robertson ranked Jones, meaning that Robertson ended up in command of the two brigades, and not Jones. I firmly believe that had Jones been in command of this task force–rather than Robertson–things would have been very different indeed, as Jones would have been much more aggressive and much more diligent about seeing that the column moved with alacrity. It’s not a big surprise that Robertson was relieved of command after the Gettysburg Campaign and that he never commanded troops in the field again after his miserable failures during the campaign.

(snip)

In short, then, had Robertson obeyed Stuart’s orders, there would have been two full brigades of cavalry with the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia. Jenkins’ brigade was with Ewell and was actively engaged. Imboden’s command was not summoned by Lee, who made a conscious choice not to utilize those men.

History's shorthand is that "Stuart was late." The truth is a lot more complicated; a combination of untried troops, incompetent subordinates, rivalries between commanders, and the wrong man being put in charge simply because he outranked the better one. And the kicker: there WAS Confederate cavalry at Gettysburg from the opening shots, but Lee didn't want to use them. At the hingepoint of history, every man must do his duty, but there's always one dumb son of a bitch who doesn't get the word (in the immortal words of JFK). Luckily for us, the dumb sons of bitches were on the southern side that day.

The complete analysis is at the link. It's worth your time.

UPDATE: there's no buff like a Civil War buff. Rantings has a list of their 10 favorite books about the Battle of Gettysburg. His capsule review for David G. Martin's, Gettysburg, July 1. begins: "I'm a first day guy. It's by far my favorite part of the battle." Now, THAT'S a connoisseur!

San Francisco likes to revel in its self-proclaimed rep as a hotbed of cutting edge, avant-garde art. So, it's funny how many of SF's leading lights are decades-old institutions, with the Sixties the decade to which many trace their origins. Now, the SF Mime Troop - an agit-prop satirical theater group with an undeserved reputation for humor and political insight is celebrating its 50th - yes, 50th - anniversary. That's 50 years of cursing, giant puppet heads, and screeching diatribes about NixonReaganLimbaughGingrichBushPalin. SF Mime Troupe Turns 50

Few American performance companies can boast such longevity, let alone small troupes with no endowment. Who would've thought that an avant-garde arts experiment would become one of the nation's best-known companies within its first decade? That it would launch careers as diverse as those of Peter Coyote, Shabaka and Bill Graham? That a gritty anti-establishment troupe would win a Tony award? Or that mimes could be this vocal?

Actually, the Mime Troupe has hardly ever been silent. From the first performance in 1959 of what was then the R.G. Davis Mime Studio and Troupe - "Mime and Words" - founder Davis tried to signal a distinction between his work and silent mimes like Marcel Marceau. Davis, who studied with Marceau's teacher Étienne Decroux, worked with physically based, or mimetic, acting. Through decades of performing commedia dell'arte and original musicals in the parks, the Mime Troupe has made lots of noise.

It's also changed considerably over the years. Davis' Mime Troupe embodied the progressive turbulence of the '60s, spreading its cultural and political influence on tour. Davis left in 1970 and the company became a collective, as it still is. The troupe of the next three decades, though it continued to tour and mount indoor shows until funding dried up, is best known for its rousing park shows by Holden, director Dan Chumley and composer Bruce Barthol. The 21st century Troupe, exemplified by actor-playwright Michael Gene Sullivan and actors Ed Holmes and Velina Brown, keeps up the struggle to sharpen the collective's message through its summer shows.

"I think the Mime Troupe's job has always been to challenge the accepted stories of American-style capitalism," Sullivan says, taking a break from rehearsals for the customary Fourth of July opening in Dolores Park. The new musical, "Too Big to Fail," focuses on the national addiction to credit, using fables told by a traditional African storyteller to explore "an economy that needs us to be indebted consumers

No one goes to see the Mime Troupe to be enlightened. They just want to see their progressive politics affirmed. Another 50 years should be no problem.

Here's a sad story about one of the many young people who came to San Francisco in the Sixties looking for adventure and found much more than they were bargaining for. Idealists Slaying In '71 Still Haunts Today.

Mary Alice Willey arrived in San Francisco in 1969.

She was 21 years old, the product of a conservative Southern California family, newly divorced and ready to experience life in the free-wheeling Haight-Ashbury district.

She rented an attic apartment and enrolled at San Francisco State, where she eagerly participated in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War sit-ins and demonstrations.

Then Mary Alice discovered the black power movement.

In movies about the Sixties, this is the moment when the soundtrack cues up "I Want To Take You Higher," or, if the rights are avaiable, "What's Going On."

She became a strident devotee of George Jackson, the charismatic but militant San Quentin inmate who had gained international fame for his best-selling prison classic, "Soledad Brother." She wrote letters to Black Panther Johnny Spain, who was also incarcerated at San Quentin.

And she began associating with members of the Black Liberation Army, a violent offshoot of the Black Panthers that would become implicated in the Aug. 29, 1971, killing of a police officer at San Francisco's Ingleside Station. There is reason to believe that Mary Alice may have played a role in the attack and the slaying of Sgt. John V. Young.

That's the problem with the "idealists" beloved of the Sixties' marketers. Their "idealism" could easily turn violent. In Mary's case, she was not just hanging out with Black Panthers, she was also sexually involved with a typical type found in the Haight to this day: the thug who mouths just enough hippie blather to get into as many girls' pants as possible. Ah, innocense! And idealism!

Most girls, of course, survive their run-ins with the world's Bad Boys, allowing for a lifetime of rueful smiles while lunching with their friends. But, Mary found a darker end:

But less than two weeks after the attack on Ingleside Station, Mary Alice disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Thirty-seven years would pass before an investigator with the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department would determine that an unidentified body found floating in a canal near Modesto on Sept. 11, 1971, was Mary Alice.

She had been stabbed 65 times. Ten of the wounds were fatal, the rest defensive. Her body had been buried in the Patterson District Cemetery. Atop her grave was a beige stone that said, simply, "Jane Doe."

There's an old saying that God takes care of drunks, young children, and pretty girls, but it doesn't often work that way.

The Sex, Drugs & Rock and Roll Revolution in Sixties-era San Francisco may well be one of the most overwritten pieces of history in modern times, yet the truth of its effects has never been adequately explored. People love to talk about the "idealism" of middle class kids traveling to SF to hang-out with thugs masquerading as revolutionaries. It's rare to hear a negative word about the overdoses, the homelessness, the rapes, the occasional murders, and the disease that were part of the "San Francisco experience" back then. Even a story like that of the murder of Mary Alice Wiley comes couched in the BS language of Sixties hagiogaphy - "idealists," "die-hard militants," the treatment of criminals like George Jackson as noble revolutionaries. Please. The Black Panthers and their ilk killed a lot of people - many of them naive white progressives who supported their "cause," whatever that was. They also ripped off a lot of people, both in terms of money and politics. And yet to raise these issues, and to try to prosecute these murderers is to invite scandal and opprobrium. There are plenty of prominent people in the Bay Area - Ron Dellums and Barbara Lee come to mind - who carry a lot of secrets, and yet maintain the silence of Left-Wing Omerta.

The continued reverence for the "revolutionary" Sixties tells you everything you need to know about the Left's values and intentions.

San Francisco progressives are always bragging about how they are the hip vanguard of the future. But they have a nasty habit of trying to trap present conditions in amber, so that residents can do little to improve their living and working conditions. Historic Preservation Plan Won't Save SF

Aaron Peskin swears he isn't trying to "shrink wrap the city" and designate virtually every building in San Francisco an untouchable historical site. Yet that's the allegation from those opposed to the former Board of Supervisors president's efforts to rewrite two parts of the city Planning Code.

Peskin's proposal would make it easier to declare a neighborhood a historic district, and states that buildings that "contribute" to the historic significance should be made nearly impossible to change, tear down or renovate. To be considered a contributing resource, the building only has to be "present during the period of historical significance."

These so-called contributing buildings could not be "demolished," and the definition of what constitutes demolition is incredibly broad. If 25 percent of a building's facade is removed, or 50 percent of the floor, the building would be considered demolished.

This is all important because the conventional wisdom is that San Francisco will soon be declaring many neighborhoods historical districts, which means that these restrictions would automatically apply. Almost any building in the city could conceivably qualify as a "contributing" structure.

Far be it from me to question Peskin's noble intentions, but this looks like a progressive's version of NIMBY-ism, an attempt to protect existing property values by making it impossible to build or rehabilitate housing.

There are a lot of beautiful buildings in SF. But there are also a lot of run-down ones as well. People like looking at pretty fascades. They don't like living in crowded flats with 5 college graduates sharing a bathroom that was built in 1920. But that is the situation in many SF neighborhoods because the preservationist mentality makes it so difficult to renovate and rehabilitate "historic" buildings. Historic in what way? Shouldn't there at least be a PhD dissertation associated with a building before it is declared historic? Is the Sunset going to be declared historic? How about the Outer Mission? Is Stonestown historic? It was one of the earliest "gallerias," after all. I could go on all day.

Of course, San Franciscans have a habit of celebrating events and persons of dubious historic value. Check out this rant, which demands that SF preserve a room where a Depression-era strike was organized: Don't Raise Hall Where It All Began

We the longshore unions of the Bay Area would like to clarify a number of issues concerning the proposal to tear down our founding headquarters at 113 Steuart St. in San Francisco. Federal, state and city laws protect significantly historic sites such as 113 Steuart St.

This nationally important historic site must be preserved for the working people of San Francisco and the United States. On the 75th anniversary of the West Coast Maritime and San Francisco General Strike, which shook the world, developers are proposing to demolish our birthplace.

It was from this union hall that Harry Bridges and the Maritime Strike Committee organized, led and won the battle for union rights and recognition. This hall was the center of the three-month Waterfront Maritime Strike. It was ground zero on Bloody Thursday, July 5, 1934, when police and deputies, following orders, shot scores of union members, and where Howard Sperry was martyred (in front of the adjoining building).

Yammer. Yammer. Yammer. No matter how old my grandmother got, you could always get her going by bringing up Harry Bridges. He may have been a hero to some, but to a lot of his contemporaries, he was a commuist subversive who tried to wreck SF's economy through riots and mob violence. My grandmother never stopped saying that Bridges "ruined San Francisco." His proponents (Howard Zinn is a big fan) often credit him with bringing the counter-culture to SF. You mean we can blame him for drugs, bad Beat Poetry, bathhouses, and the Grateful Dead?

All of this shows how little history has actually happened in SF. Maybe that's just my East Coast bias; but, where I grew up (Northern Virginia) people argued over preserving Civil War battlefields where thousands were killed in the cause of freedom. But a bunch of goofs going on strike and wrecking SF's status as a working port? Color me unmoved.

TigerHawk offers a more balanced, thoughtful perspective on the AIG bonuses, in contrast to the fake "populist" anger from the president and the real populist anger from everyone else. At the end he offers this bit of chastisement for our weak willed political class: 

The WSJ has an interesting essay of "progressive originalism," 

Federalist 63 (via Byron York)

“There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

"It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else."