Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Democrats are doing their damnedest to minimize Hillary Clinton's involvement in (i.e., facilitation of) Bill Clinton's sexual assaults. I keep hearing Bill's actions described as "infidelities." This isn't about infidelity, which is between him and Hillary. It's about abuse, which is criminal. It's also about Hillary's attempts to destroy the (many) women who accused her husband of rape, assault, and harassment. A few minutes ago, on CNN, Donna Brazile dismissed Bill's actions as "indiscretions." That's like accusing Hitler of being insensitive to Jews. It's true, but it vastly understates the case.

I've also heard it said that standards were different in the early 1990s, when Bill was on his sexual rampage. (I do not imply that the rampage has ended.) Tolerance for sexual offenses was greater then than it is now, so, according to Democrats, it's unfair to condemn Bill. But wait. Haven't progressives been applying contemporary standards to the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson? Either it's permissible to apply contemporary standards retroactively or it's not. If it is, then Bill's behavior is fair game. If it's not, then progressives should stop calling Washington et al. racists.

High Voltage (1976). This is the first AC/DC album released in the United States. It's 40 years old. My brother Gary once called AC/DC the "best rock band ever," and he may be right.

Re “Obama unveils gun measures” (News, Jan. 6): While the rest of the world will never fully come to terms with the twisted logic often witnessed in the United States in the aftermath of yet another mass shooting, one can only applaud President Obama’s executive action on gun control announced on Jan. 5. At the very least this can be qualified as a proactive attempt to mitigate future tragedies, as opposed to merely reacting in their aftermath.

However, in dissecting the measures introduced by President Obama, it is quite clear they barely scratch the surface of the deep-rooted issues underpinning American gun violence. Furthermore, in a country where a new “Gun TV” home-shopping channel is about to be launched, expectations of actual implementation or a more robust legislative follow-up must be kept to a minimum.

While Mr. Obama must be commended for stepping into the ring, one cannot deny that it is an extremely sad state of affairs when it takes executive action and the exhibition of deep personal emotions to even have these basic measures launched into the political domain. If the massacre of first graders did not spur the nation into unified action, one cannot help but wonder, what will?

Sander van Niekerk, The Hague

Note from KBJ: Thank God for the Second Amendment. Without it, we would be at the mercy of the likes of Sander van Niekerk.

Here.

Here.

Tin Machine II (1991). David Bowie is dead at 69. He was a musical genius. Thank you, David, for bringing such joy into my life. Rest in peace.

To the Editor:

Arguably, the world is changing faster than at any point in history—in global warming, migration, technology, terrorism, national borders and genetics. The overriding challenge for the next president will be to coolly assess, prioritize and act on these daunting threats and opportunities.

Our first instinct is to recoil from change, taking refuge in a simpler, more prosperous time, 1950s Middle America, for example. The Constitution also looms large as a touchstone, to which literalists brook no challenge. If we can just turn back the clock following the letter of its 1787 precepts, change can be held at bay.

Yet the founding fathers were not at all terrified by change, but instead embraced it in the Constitution. They would, no doubt, be appalled by the political discourse of today and by those who claim to be disciples asserting a monopoly over their thinking and masterpiece. Their genius lay precisely in knowing that future crises could not be imagined in their time, leaving us the flexibility to respond to change and avoiding the pitfalls of rigid prescriptions.

Overreaction to change can also sap our strength. American exceptionalism, once shorthand for our can-do spirit and self-confidence, has been stood on its head as a bulwark against change on immigration, taxes and health. Seen from abroad, where I served for three decades, it conveys arrogance and a belief that entities like the World Court, and treaties on the Law of the Sea, the environment and human rights, simply don’t apply to us.

Our next president must not shrink from long overdue reforms, but must lead with them. Both the president and Congress must keep in mind Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1821 dictum that “a constitution is framed for ages to come, and is designed to approach immortality as nearly as human institutions can approach it.” Put differently, effective governance lies somewhere between revisionism and textualism.

RICHARD L. JACKSON

Wellington, Fla.

The writer is a retired diplomat, college president and freelance writer.

Note from KBJ: This is a straw-person argument. Nobody opposes change, legal or otherwise. The Constitution requires that change take place within its parameters, the most important of which is the amendment clause. If you don't like the principles set forth in the Constitution, work to amend it.