heart and mind, and that the “God” ofnTorquemada or Khomeini fits our notionnof the Supreme Being and His willnto which we are all subject. PresidentnReagan and Secretary Haig may graspnthe notion of human rights at this stagenof our history—how it should serve ournfreedom, our welfare and our missionn—but we wish that their understandingnwere rooted in intellectual responsibilitynrather than in political stipulations.nThe directive must be not benignly tonignore the human-rights issue but tontake it from the liberal monopoly andneffectively prove that it is our issue.nIncidentally, among those who werenmost instrumental in Mr. Lefever’s demisenwas Senator Charles Percy. Hisnreasoning seemed rather murky andnshady, which confirmed our suspicions:none of the least decent aspects of politicsnis a lack of clarity in political deeds.nSenator Percy is an unusual individual,nwith a face so honest that one immediatelynfeels uneasy before such excessivenuprightness. Whenever he is inntrouble he is obsequious to conservatives;nwhen he feels firm in the saddlenhe panders to liberals in a most oilynway. Some perceive such maneuveringnas a splendid independence of mind. Tonus it looks as if Senator Percy has lessnelusive aims than independence ornmind.nNonproliferationnIn terms of simple human logic, thenIsraeli action against the Iraqi nuclearnreactor is perfectly consistent and rational.nWe in America are against thenproliferation of nuclear facilities thatncould produce atomic weapons—andnIsrael has come up with a practical solutionnto our concerns.nMr. Louis Nizer. the famous NewnYork lawyer and writer, has offered anmore complex—political, legal or moraln—analysis of the event. In an article inna recent Chicago Tribune, he provednthat Israel’s decision was fully justifiednby the principles which have long beennrecognized by American, internationalnand even Islamic law—if only someoneninvolved in the ensuing dispute werenwilling to accept the inconvenience ofnhonestly and thoroughly reading thenappropriate canons, statutes and codices.nAs for the way the Reagan administrationnhandled the matter, we once againnreceived the uncomfortable impressionnthat the most basic tenets of our foreignnpolicy are far from being securely andnthoughtfully fixed. Even the Wall StreetnJournal—which, God knows, wishesnReagan to succeed—found it necessarynConfusionnIn a strange and rather curious article,none Mr. Sidney Zion has accusednthe American music industry, especiallynthe big record companies, of having deliberatelynpolluted American popularnculture with rock ‘n ‘roll music, therebynnearly obliterating the great Americannheritage of songwriting and popularnmusic that has existed since the turnnof the century.nMr. Zion is obviously a liberal butnnot a fool—as Senator Jackson oncensaid about himself—and he wages a valiantnfight in defense of the excellence,nthe devastating charm, of early jazz,nswing and other treasures of Americannpopular music from Handy to Gershwinnto Jerome Kern. The current resurgencenof interest in performers like Sinatra,nElla Fitzgerald and Tony Bennett hencalls a renaissance of taste. He hopesnthat the declining teen-age record marketnwill usher in more sensible preferencesnfor a musical style more sophisticatednthan the crudely primitive rock.nYet his treatise suffers from confusionnand shallowness. He does not, or cannot,nexplain why an entire generation abandonednthe refinement of Ellington andnthe poetry of Nat King Cole to worshipnat the feet of crude protoplasmic machinesnlike Elvis Presley, animated sexnJOURNALISMnnnto chide our accord with the United Nations’ncensure: their editorial was entitledn”Andy Kirkpatrick” — a characterizationnof our U.N. representative’s meanderingnwhich looks like it is right onntarget. What disturbs us about the Reagannteam’s erratic approach to foreignnpolicy is its lack of any philosophicalnsense of the word and the concept ofnalliance. During the 1970’s most of ournallies got the feeling that we understandnneither word nor concept. To prolongnthis state of affairs would seem to be anvery risky business in today’s world. Dnobjects like Mick Jagger and singingnradic-lib agitators like Bob Dylan. Mr.nZion seems not to understand that popularnmusic is always an expression of ideasn(even primitive ones) and trends whichnare first conceived by centers of culturenother than entertainment and show business.nThe ideas that governed a young,nrapidly expanding America whose optimismnand socioeconomic robustnessnrhymed well with healthy patriotism expressednitself through the energy andnthe painful social concerns of jazz.nAmerica—mobilized against the Depressionnin the 1930’s and prepared to defendnthe world’s freedom in the 1940’s —nfound its musical emblem in the dynamismnand joyfulness of swing. Americanof the 1960’s—debilitated by sociopsychology,nliberal inertia and suicidal defeatism—foundnits troubadors in the degeneracynof rock.nMr. Zion researched his article amongnsingers, songwriters, broadcasting executivesnand music-industry mavens. Thenlatter tried to convince him that rock’snsubcultural wave had never been promoted—thencountry “wanted it” and thenrecord industry responded. It’s hard tonimagine a more blatant and cynical lie,nand Mr. Zion didn’t buy it. He quotes ancertain Mr. Ahmet Ertegun, president ofnAtlantic Records, a radic-chic millionaire,nthe darling of transvestite capitalismna la Women’s Wear Daily and onenAinSeptember/October 1981n