Friday, October 31, 2008


"Better in my grandfather's day," he told me, shaking his head sadly.
"We grow progressively more Philistine," I suggested.
"It is our cheap press. The ephemeral overwhelms the permanent, the classical."
"This journalism," I agreed, "or call it rather rather this piddling quotidianism*, is the curse of our age."
"Fit only for......." He gesticulated clutchingly with his hands as though seeking the word.
"For the fire."
The old man was triumphantly emphatic with his, "No: for the sewer."

* 'daily recurrence' (I had to look it up. I thought I'd save you the trouble.)



Welcome to all of you, the top dozen Journalism majors of this year’s graduating class, the cream of the crop. This will be the first and only session of CIVICS 101 and will last, at most, 10 minutes. Successful completion of this session will satisfy the final requirement for your Journalism degree. Any questions?

No questions, that’s a good journalistic sign. As journalists, you must be prepared to trust your own pre-conceived notions and not stoop to being influenced by what less intelligent people might call facts. However, if there remain any areas of curiosity at the conclusion of the session, I will be glad to entertain your questions then.

Now, because you are who you are, I’ll skip over the lecture and proceed to the final examination. Don’t worry, it shouldn’t be too difficult for, as we’ve kept reminding you, you’re all superior individuals.

Open the envelope on your desk and remove the one-page test sheet inside. As you see, it consists of four questions, all of which are multiple choice. Take a minute to scan it while I read it to you, as I know you all dislike reading anything someone else has written. After which, we’ll proceed to the actual examination.


A. The 1st Tuesday in November.
B. The 3rd Friday in February.
C. Barack Obama’s birthday.
D. Any day you feel like voting.


A. Any citizen of the United States, eighteen years or older.
B. Anyone, citizen or not, regardless of age, living or dead.
C. Any resident of the United States, legal or otherwise.
D. Anyone registered by ACORN (including 'B' and 'C', above).


A. Examine the issues along with the candidates’ experiences and characters.
B. Follow the advice of movie stars, rock stars and other intellectual giants.
C. Rate how the candidates speak, look and dress, not how they think and act.
D. See how much each promises to take away from someone else to give to you.


A. Obama Loses.
B. Obama Wins.
C. Either of the above.
D. None of the above.

Now that we’ve reviewed the test, it’s time to grade your answers. I will assume that each of you made an emotional connection with one answer to each of the four questions. As I give you the correct answers, I want you to grade yourselves. As Journalism majors, you’ve been taught never to accept the criticism of others, so we expect you to grade your own responses.

THE ANSWER ‘A’ in each case is archaic, not at all emblematic of change. It reeks of yesterday, the old world, not the new world, not the world you want to create.

THE ANSWERS ‘B’ and ‘C’ in each case may be desirable or beneficial, but are only parts of the whole, steps in the right direction, falling short of fulfilling your progressive dreams.

THE ANSWER ‘D’ in each case is the correct answer, the progressive answer, the doorway to the new world, as I’m sure you all realized immediately.

May we have a show of hands of those who had the correct answer? All of you. I’m not surprised. As head of the Department of Journalism I’ve tried to be your guide through the intricacies of our Electoral process and I’m proud of your accomplishments.

Ooops! I see we have two people with questions. We’ll start with the young man in the second row. What’s on your mind? …….Thank you, I’ll repeat your question for the class. You want to know what the word ‘intricacies’ means. Well, that’s my fault. Perhaps I should have used a simpler expression. Think of it more as the trivial details of the process which, frankly, you needn’t worry about.

And you, young lady by the window. You also had your hand up……..I see, you want to know why Journalists have to know anything about the Electoral process. A very good question.

The answer has two aspects. In the first instance, you must exhibit at least a passing acquaintance with the process in order to feign objectivity and attract a following. However, as you progress through your career and your personal convictions become more important than the facts, this ‘objectivity’ may become at least a distraction or, more seriously, a detriment to the overall mission for which we’ve prepared you, that is, to change the world.

I see there’s another question from the same young man in the second row………”No. I’m sorry, but we don’t have enough time to explain all the words you don’t understand. Be comforted by the fact that, wherever you’re going to be working, words will not be as important as mood, your point of view, the emotion involved beneath the surface. Remember the motto of what used to be the nation’s premier newspaper, “All the news that fits us, we print.”

And, need I remind you that the old ‘report the news and keep your opinions to yourself’ school of journalism that may have been appreciated by your grandfathers is outdated. As I said before, your studies here have prepared you to change the world, not merely parrot useless facts. Truth must be dealt with. When the truth doesn’t further your personal agenda, distort it. When it threatens your agenda, destroy it.

Now go forth, you seekers of Utopia, you instruments of change, and help bring about your courageous new world. And should the God in whom you do not believe actually exist, may He have mercy on your souls!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Barack Huessin Obama

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw

Assume that Shaw’s Peter is a plumber and Paul is a philosopher and reflect on this from the late John Gardner, LBJ’s head of HEW from 1965 to 1968.

"The society that scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

Now, try substituting the word “taxes” for “scorns” and “politics” for “philosophy” and you might have something more appropriate to our current situation, to wit:

"The society that taxes excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in politics because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good politics. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."

The dirty little secret of the prevailing Liberal Democrat theory of spreading the wealth is that it can work only where there is unlimited wealth. For there will be, most certainly, no shortage of outstretched hands and upturned mouths on the receiving line. And as each of the SOWS (Spreaders Of Wealth) gets sucked dry of his or her available supply of spreadable wealth, when all the wealth has been spread, when the supposedly infinite store of largess has been dispensed, what then? Do we then tell all the recipients that SUCKISM has run its course and they must now become the spreaders and reverse the flow? Does the SUCKER become the SUCKEE? Who is John Galt?

As long as we’re asking questions, does the statement, “From each according to his means and to each according to his needs” mean anything to you? Does the phrase “Spreading the wealth” send a quiver up your leg or a shiver down your spine? We have seen ample proof in the last century of the efficacy of Socialism. It would seem improbable that we would need to be reminded of the Cuba of Fidel Castro, the Russia of Josef Stalin, (see also Poland, Hungary, Latvia, East Germany, etc.), the Venezuela of Hugo Chavez, and the other failed experiments in human misery.

Given these historical tragedies, when is the last time you really thought about what this country is all about, what philosophy has enabled its success, what innate sense of morality has guided its development, what inspired ideology has informed its goodness and what strength of spirit has protected it?

My advice to my fellow-citizens is simple. Be informed. Know from whence we came and how we got here. Remember that what’s best for the country is also best for you. However, also realize that what’s best for you is not always best for the country. And to my younger fellow-citizens, at least those who think, beware falling victim to the pack mentality. The pack has been known to turn on itself when other prey becomes scarce. And finally, as a wise man once said, “If you’re not a socialist by the age of 20, you have no heart. If you’re still a Socialist at age 30, you have no brain.”



The number seven seems to permeate the current political silly season. Seven years seems to be a recurring time frame and groups of seven seem to define the mess in which we find ourselves.

THE NEW 9/11 – THE SEVEN YEARS wherein the Liberal Democrats succeeded where the 9/11 terrorists failed.

In September 2001, fanatical Muslim terrorists attempted to topple the U.S. financial system and the Twin Towers that embodied it. They succeeded in bringing down the Twin Towers but failed to topple the U.S. Economy

In September 2008 (seven years later), Congressional Democrats completed their socialistic agenda’s decades-long misuse of their own twin towers (and cash cows), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their attempts to deny their complicity, to protect their party and to shield their Presidential nominee from blame for the resulting financial fiasco blocked any realistic chance of containing the damage to our financial system.

These Liberal Congressional Democrats succeeded not only in bringing down their own twin towers (Fannie & Freddie), but also succeeded where the terrorists had failed by dealing a crippling blow to the U.S. Economy.

Score The Democrats – 1 The Country – 0

THE SEVEN DEADLY SINS – An Association Test wherein you are invited to match one from Column A with one from Column B.
---A ----------------------- B
Gluttony ..............Franklin Raines (CEO Fannie Mae, Carter & Clinton OMB, advisor to Obama)
Lust ......................Barney Frank (D. Mass.)
Greed ...................Chris Dodd (D. CT)
Sloth .....................Chuck Schumer (D. NY)
Wrath ...................Maxine Waters (D. Cal)
Envy ......................Nancy Pelosi (D. Cal)
Pride .....................Barack Obama (D. ILL.)

(Hint to solvers: THERE ARE NO WRONG ANSWERS.)

Score The Democrats – 2 The Country – 0

THE INNOCENCE OF THE SEVEN YEAR OLD – Wherein the Child is Father to the Man

When Adolph Hitler marched into Poland, I was only 7 years old. Years later, had I the opportunity to socialize and work closely with him, I might have politely refused (possibly even impolitely) and if he’d offered to host my political coming-out party and do some fund-raising for me, there’s a good chance I might have refused his help.

When 60’s radical Bill Ayers began his public career as a terrorist by bombing New York City Police Headquarters, Barack Obama was only 8 years old.
When 60’s radical Bill Ayers bombed the United States Capitol building, Barack Obama was only 9 years old.
When 60’s radical Bill Ayers bombed the Pentagon, Barack Obama was only 10 years old.

Therefore, Obama claims his close association with Bill Ayers years later is not to be regarded as a reflection on his own patriotism, his judgment, his political philosophy or his fitness to govern. Of course, this rationalization doesn’t take into account the following:

When 60’s radical Bill Ayers publicly expressed his regret for not having done more damage to the United States, Barack Obama was only 39 years old.

Obama never knew about Ayers’ terrorist activities. Never knew, even while living in an area where Ayers was celebrated and idolized for his past. He never heard about it, never read about it, never realized that his benefactor, mentor and co-director was a detestable hangover from the ranks of the 60’s anarchists, bomb-throwers, cop-killers and America-haters.

Just as the smartest woman in the world didn’t have the faintest idea of what her husband was doing (or rather, having done to him) while they both lived in the White House, we now have this smart fellow who would use his wisdom and insights to govern 300 million citizens. The same smart fellow whose wisdom and insight never provided him with the faintest glimmer into the heinous crimes of only one citizen, the acts of terrorism his friend, benefactor and fellow-traveler had committed, admitted to and bragged about.

Score The Democrats – 3 The Country - 0

THE SEVEN VIRTUES – Another Association Test wherein you are invited to match one from Column A with one from Column B.

---A-------------------- B
Faith ...............Chuck Schumer (D. NY)
Hope ...............Bernie Sanders (I. VT)
Charity ............Ted Kennedy (D. Mass)
Fortitude ........Hillary Clinton (D. NY ?)
Justice .............Henry Waxman (D. Cal)
Prudence .........John Conyers (D. Mich)
Temperance ....Harry Reid (D. Nev)

(Hint to solvers: THERE ARE NO RIGHT ANSWERS.)

Score The Democrats – 4 The Country – 0

THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN – Wherein the Seven ‘Masters of the Universe’ were duped by The Seven Deadly Sins into betraying The Seven Virtues (see above)

Lehman Brothers
Goldman Sachs
Washington Mutual
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Indy Mac

Score The Democrats – 5 The country – 0


1. I wonder when the Liberal/Progressive, Socialist-Leaning Media will wake up and realize that their reward for blindly backing the Obama Manifesto could result in they, themselves, being destroyed by it?

2. I wonder when the Liberal/Progressive throwbacks will realize that their visceral hate for George Bush, the Military and business in general is at best childish, at worst treasonous, and that George Bush saved their asses in spite of themselves.

3. I wonder when the right will stop trying to make nice with the left? When will they learn that you don’t defeat duplicity by encouraging it?

4. I wonder when the 60’s crowd will grow up, stop looking for their lost youth, their lost causes, their lost hates and realize how their generation and its spawn have done lasting damage to this country that shelters them?

5. I wonder if the party that supports partial birth abortion and wants governmental control of a socialistic healthcare delivery system realizes that neither position promotes human well being?

6. I wonder why the feminists of the left (a redundancy) have so much hate for their country that they spew their venom on a successful woman simply because she doesn’t support abortion on demand, the indiscriminate murder of millions of their fellow citizens?

7. I wonder if, at age 75, I will live long enough to see the rebirth of a Democratic Party that rejects the Clintonian principles of character assassination, dissembling and outright falsification, that stands for something other than the failed collective ideologies of the last several centuries and that reemerges as a vital and vibrant contributor to honest and intelligent political discourse? I Wonder.