Thursday June 20, 2019
SNc Channels:



Jun-19-2011 05:59printcomments

I am liberal, hear me roar*

It's long past time for liberals to repossess the word that identifies them which has been stolen and mutilated in reprehensible ways. If we can accomplish this, then conservatives will have to criticize ideas, rather than just obfuscate with their use of liberal as an unchallenged code word.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - In my last story, Conservatives are winning battles, but losing the War, one commenter who signed himself (presume a he) as BG wrote:

Liberalism is a disease, almost as dangerous as Islam, and must be excised from western civilization by ... Unfortunately, he did not finish his rant, so we are left in the dark about how liberalism can be effectively excised from Western civilization.

This, to me, raises the question of how intelligent people can let a word be hijacked? I’m referring, obviously to the word liberal which conservatives have turned into a dirty word, with no effective resistance from liberals. That ends here and now!

I took out from storage and blew the dust off a dictionary I’ve had since I was in high school, my THORNDIKE-BARNHART Comprehensive Desk Dictionary (Doubleday, 1962). TB defined liberal as:

adj. 1. generous: a liberal donation

2. plentiful; abundant: a liberal amount

3. broad-minded; not narrow in one’s ideas: a liberal thinker

4. favoring progress and reforms: a liberal party

5. giving the general thought, not a word-for-word rendering: a liberal translation

n. 1. a person favourable to progress and reforms Liberal, member of a Liberal Party.

[Latin liberalis befitting free men <liber free]

—Syn adj 1. bountiful, unstinted 2. ample, large 3. tolerant

TB goes on to define:

liberalism liberal principles and ideas; belief in progress and reforms

liberality 1. generosity 2. a gift 3. broad-mindedness

liberal-minded broad-minded

If conservatives are the opposites of liberals (as many conservatives maintain), then being a conservative is not very nice: mean-spirited, ungenerous, small-minded, narrow, intolerant, against progress and reforms—well, you get the picture.

Now, move ahead nearly 50 years to a definition of liberal in the current Merriam-Webster. The lengthy definition is about the same as TB with the following synonyms:

“generous, bountiful, munificent, mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. liberal, suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given [a teacher liberal with her praise]. generous, stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift [a generous offer of help]. bountiful, suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing . munificent suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes [a munificent foundation grant].

Paul Krugman, Nobel economist and columnist with the New York Times defends the New Deal, its goals and ideals in his book The Conscience of a Liberal:

Liberalism…isn’t just about the welfare state: It’s also about democracy and the rule of law. And those who call themselves conservative are on the other side, with a political strategy that rests, at its core, on exploiting the unwillingness of some Americans to grant equal rights to their fellow citizens—to those who don’t share their skin color, don’t share their faith, don’t share their sexual preferences.

This goes back, he writes, to the 1950s when “The National Review [William F. Buckley] praised [the Spanish dictator] Francisco Franco and defended the right of white southerners to disenfranchise blacks.” (p. 267) Buckley had written: "The White community is so entitled because it is, for the time being, the advanced race." (p. 9)

What is a dictionary?

A dictionary is not a rulebook, but rather a display of a word’s current usage. Words change their meaning as a look back on the evolution of the English language shows.

For example: In 1962, gay was defined as “1. happy and full of fun; merry 2. bright-colored ; showy 3. fond of pleasures.”

The current MH, gives an equivalent definition, with the new addition of referring to same-sex orientation between men. That word, too, has been hijacked but I don’t know who would really object because it hasn’t been taken over in a hostile, mean-spirited manner. It just means that a person using gay has to exercise caution in its use. You might say a man is really gay, but unless you mean he has a homosexual orientation, you would be better to use other words, such as happy or exuberant to avoid misinterpretation (or even offense).

To see what can happen when words are hijacked, I offer the case of Ayn Rand, the crazy doyen of capitalism. To an audience of architects, she once said: “'I use words the way you use a slide-rule.” She always maintained that her use of the word “selfishness” conformed to the dictionary. Then, after her death, one of her followers, Harry Biswanger, acknowledged that one of her signal accomplishments was to have shown that some of the terms she used, like “selfishness”, had been improperly defined—a perfect illustration of the old story of the lady watching the troops march by: “Look, everyone is out of step but my son John.”

Just as Ayn Rand used words out of step with the society around her, so too, do conservatives. Their use of liberal is not in congruence with the way that non-conservatives use it.

This is the state of modern conservatism—a once noble word itself, that goes back centuries. But if modern “conservatives” wish to see themselves, define themselves, as opposites of the hated liberals, then you can understand how we liberals can honestly see them as not very nice people.

Liberals. Stand up. Take back who you are!

*Acknowledgements to Helen Reddy

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

hank Ruark July 10, 2011 12:19 pm (Pacific time)


Just happened across detailed report from the same event you describe in London, by Peggy Noonan, in WStJrnl 7/9-10. Since it is titled " We Need a Ronald Reagan", I feel you will surely enjoy...and Peggy lays it on line, too, putting R/R days in common sense setting for what they were worth. She covers details of celebration in Prague, Krakow, and Budapest. Really should NOT feed your obsession re how great R/R was but did feel you'd enjoy Noonan coverage.

Hank: I just read the Noonan piece, and it is filled with a lot of fantasy. Communism had been rotting from the inside for decades and all that Reagan, et al did was, like a dead old tree, push it over.

I prefer the observation made by Andrew Bacevich in Limits of Power: The end of American Exceptionalism (2008):Reagan was a “faux-conservative” who “added to America’s civic religion two crucial beliefs: credit has no limits, and the bills will never come due. Balance the books, pay as you go, save for a rainy day—Reagan’s abrogation of these ancient bits of folk wisdom did as much to recast America’s moral constitution as did sex, drugs and rock and roll.”

and that:

“During the Carter years, the federal deficit had averaged $54.5 billion annually. During the Reagan era, deficits skyrocketed, averaging $210.6 billion over the course of Reagan’s two terms in office. Overall federal spending nearly doubled, from $590.9 billion in 1980 to $1.14 trillion in 1989. The federal government did not shrink. It grew, the bureaucracy swelling by nearly 5 percent while Reagan occupied the White House. Although his supporters had promised that he would shut down extraneous government programs and agencies, that turned out to be just so much hot air.”

Hank Ruark July 4, 2011 1:59 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: I'm happy you're happy, Mark --but note this is short-period for true historic record, and we'll see what we may see come a decade or two more...that is, you may...I probably won't, but you can be sure I'll seek R/R out if my next assignment permits...can hardly wait for that interview !! Might even catch up with Lt. Col. North for same session, which'll surely light a fire, even if unneeded where we all may be... Hank

Mark July 4, 2011 8:38 am (Pacific time)

Hank I just came across this below article, thought you might enjoy hearing about it. Happy 4th of July to you, and all others who celebrate this important day. "Britain Holds Tribute to President Ronald Reagan" As Fourth of July celebrations get under way across the United States, London will hold its own tribute to America's 40th President, Ronald Reagan, with the unveiling of a bronze statue outside the American embassy in Grosvenor Square. Former president Reagan will stand alongside other celebrated US heads of state such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight D. Eisenhower and was considered important enough for Westminster City Council to break its rule specifying that ten years must pass after a subject's death before they can be immortalized in statue form."

hank Ruark June 30, 2011 3:34 pm (Pacific time)

To all: We are blessed in Oregon with a very highly regarded and respectably responsible ongoing Citizens Forum via Internet, based in Salem. Its format and operations show the great values to be had via responsible sig for each participant, with most who participate wellknown by now via nick or other name. Here's sample entry I just sent, which also gives you direct reference to a new and highly authoritative documentation for ours-on-Reagan now for a long time: Salem Friends: For shocking summary of comprehensive "big busts" and why they keep getting bigger, with big-picture reasons (and start of heavy emphasis in Reagan era !), see New York Review of Books article (7/14/11 issue) by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells titled "The Bust Keep Getting Bigger: Why ?" --built around review of new book Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America". These two are co-authors of a new textbook titled simple "Economics" and both teach and write from the Harvard sanctuary. Pay special attention to the role these two international award-winning economists describe, with the aid of the book's extremely different coverage (as a set of peculiarly probing and reflective vignettes) to the key role played by the Reagan slashes on taxes, resulting in very large losses in national revenues, massively multiplied and "matured" via financial vagaries and the unforeseen deep and painful consequences of "deregulation,, privatization and (distorted) globalization". "But why have villains triumphed so repeatedly", the review authors ask." Then they state "The proximate answer, clearly, is the abdication of regulatory oversight" --and they supply specific unanswerable information, including some new insights on the continuing long and desperate impact of the Southern "white backlash". Why doth this sound so familiar, now ?? Some readers will recognize the themes from some years ago on this same Forum, while others will be more than familiar with these basic "new findings" from other dialog and discussion over the years. In any case, to update your own solid information (for an "informed opinion" !) you will do well to seek out this issue of the Review...and other sources, too, including a familiar Internet website on which it has been a continuing theme for months. Hank

Hank Ruark June 30, 2011 12:27 pm (Pacific time)

To all:
Need current sample of distortion and misinformation at work, as applied often by GOPster-gangsters ?
Here's one, of several in same S-N response from which this is copied:
"It seems that the Times has also been exposed as not acting in an appropriate manner in addressing news reporting in a straight forward way, and uses distractions that no longer work. "

Note careful construction which can and does apply to any number of open and always controversial charges, common against any great daily --and with statement itself merely reflecting personal and individual judgement on "not acting in an appropriate manner" and on "addressing news reporting in a straight forward way".
This is sophisticated implication, one of oldest propaganda techniques, here applied by person extremely well experienced in its use and doing so intentionally --to snatch full attrention by possible meanings without actually producing any essentially identifiable ones at all.

Then there's the rest of the carefully-worded statement: "uses distractions that no longer work". That is obviously again personal/professional assumption, and again fails either to ID the "distractions" or in any way document or even ID how their effectiveness is measured here and by whom under what circumstances...without which the statement can ONLY be characterized as misinformation produced here intentionally for infliction on our readers to seek impact of unqualified, undocumented and erroneous charges --carefully cloaked in readable English to conceal and protect their inflammatory intent.

What does an Editor do when confronted by such contemptuous content, clearly designed and well-disguised to misinform and massively manipulate the readership ? He/she simply deletes the probably-offensive and obviously-contrived Comment, firmly and more than adequately justified by much stronger responsibilities to the readership and to the publication's own security and reputation.

In a private publication (which S-N surely is !) no editor or manager is held responsible for any free use of whitespace for publication content by the First Amendment; but each and every participant, by the very act of participation, in this nation and universally around the world, is thereby directly held as personally and professionally responsible for the content, tone, style and impact of what is thus clearly contributed to any channel or publication.
The common law involved varies from state to state and nation to nation but the overall protection and interest of the publication and its management is held supreme in all such "ruling documentation" --and in the U.S. can and continued to be invoked when damage is demonstrated, to reputation and publication-impact, by publication of such content accepted in all good faith by management.

SO for those few who, either as paid shills compensated for filing such content, or as psychologically-rewarded shills volunteering for the same task, be warned. S-N writers can personally pursue the benefits of legal protection and some of us are contemplating precisely that action, given the ongoing attacks recently experienced in several story-threads within the S-N menu. The question immediately occurs of identification for such content and the necessary evaluation of the content itself to determine its potential damage --which is ALL THAT IS REQUIRED by the law in most instances.

Disclosure: My knowledge here comes from personal participatory action some years ago to protect the proper usage of preview/privilege covering purchase of audiovisual productions requested for purchase evaluation.
It so happens that a small number of big/city purchase bureaucracies was effectively stealing product by the simple processes of photographic copying then in vouge, using preview-requested items.
When the illegalities reached a total later estimated at "over one million dollars" in court records, led by materials I had published in the then-leading learning media journal I edited, several major producers joined in a number of legal actions which resulted in the end to that illegal practice, to some small changes in copyright-legislation wording, and to dollar damages approximating what the court found to be provable damages.
FTR, we "had the goods on the perpetrators" via disclosure actions taken by a whole group of my colleagues and mutual graduates from Indiana University, to whom I turned constantly as Editor, using some twenty of them as a council to guide our magazine, for which I was the third editor in its then-fifty/year history. All of this is on public record, by the way.

I have NOT named the cities or the companies involved here because documentation does exist in my files, including the issues of the magazine with content I published, and the court records or summary, but is now buried in two five-drawer files from which I am now destroying long-held records as I prepare to "depart for my next assignment" !

Hank:Reminds me of the story that J.K. Galbraith once told. He was writing for Fortune and Henry Luce was the editor. He said that he and some of the other writers would labour to put positive references to the AFL-CIO and so on in such a subtle way that it would get by Luce. He added that no one thought at the time that if it got by Luce, it would surely get by the reader as well. 

Mike June 29, 2011 9:05 am (Pacific time)

Hank as you probably noticed from the links I provided in my last post, my comments were simply a reflection of the current status quo for the print media, which is also very similar to the broadcast media decline. Things are a changing Hank, whether it's a good or bad thing is up to each individual's own [subjective] conclusion. Of course the bottom line is if you are selling something that more and more people do not want (like the New York Times), and costs are greater than incoming revenue, then it's time to change course or fade out. I guess you could easily apply that same situation to any business, even current policies coming out of the Whitehouse. For example Hank, last year during the lame duck congress (the voting was over), why didn't they change the Bush tax policies? Now we see distractions and finger-pointing accusing others of what they did not do. Future campaign adds will address many issues that will show, and most importantly, remind the citizens of past hypocritical behaviors. It seems that the Times has also been exposed as not acting in an appropriate manner in addressing news reporting in a straight forward way, and uses distractions that no longer work. The information age is expanding Hank, and with it comes a need for no-nonsense news reporting, ditto for no-nonsense governing. If you make many promises and fail to keep them, well there is a price to pay.

Hank Ruark June 29, 2011 5:18 am (Pacific time)

Mike: Yours re TIMES equates "success" with dollar-sales via subs and ads, while mine clearly referred to qualty excellence. Another fine example of distortion applied, as in your further suggestion that my longtime experience over years meant outdated materials, when in truth it represents close working contact over long developmental period, surely an entirely different concept. BTW, those techniques are precisely what shills do --paid or psychologically rewarded-- to negate the plain English statements of those they wish to attack...saves so much real trouble finding facts to put into place as demanded for real answer. BTW, I use Folger's coffee...but you are free to bring your own inimitable --and surely queer !-- brew with you, if and when you find the guts to pay some attention to that responsibility-side of the First Amendment...

Hank Ruark June 28, 2011 8:48 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: FYI, your comparison of daily papers via circulation figure would be regarded as entirely useless and silly within any professional editorial group discussing leaders within the business. IF you had ever worked on a large daily, you would know that each and every one considers itself an entity unto itself, with its own personality and its own areas of accomplishment and its own geographic and community genetic facts, demands, needs and developmental patterns. That's because the audiences vary so greatly within each circulation footprint, with such direct unavoidable impact on what that paper IS and can BECOME that circulation totals are useful simply as partial measure for the ad-sales department, with knowing ad-agency buyers using them as intended --for partial measurement of what can be expected as return on ad costs. But yours would serve one good purpose...that of providing LOL for any to whom you proposed it as you did here. BTW cannot send to you direct contact response from any of my still-existing contacts since you seem afraid to make your email address public, which may well be wise on your part and is also a strong symptom of your approach, intent and impacts here. Coffee invitation still stands, sir... but don't let the pot go too cold, since the longer you wait to put up direct contact the more impact that delay is bound to have on those who can and do appreciate open, honest, democratic dialog here, without the same useless exchange of mindless defense-and-attack for competing ideologies now in process of public decision --surely seen as hampered and hamstrung by precisely the same kind of silly child's/play in for expanding the public debt limit, for example. Do you really believe even the GOPster-gang would be that stupid ?? With its impossible to avoid direct damage to their major sponsors lugging in all those bags of dollar bills ???

hank Ruark June 28, 2011 8:33 pm (Pacific time)

Alberto: Consider mine-to-Mike same invitation open to you, sir ! Only requirement is complete statement of true name and email address for checking purposes. I await your meeting that simple essential, as I still do for Mike, too. Easy to shoot off political dung-aree here, but not so easy to make it stick when confronted with the necessity for open, honest responsibilities via honest name and location, buttressed by undeniable fact from checkable source with authority to speak. Have you noted several-such from me, including national/level books by known issue-experts ? Do you have any to share ? If so, fly at making the list open to all here, and include your other points for response, too, without gloating tone and content more worthy of across-the-bar exchange... Point here is this is dialog, not debate and that there can be no winner in two-head/on ideological contacts in which facts are furiously thrown aside and open-ended personal observations treated as if they are valid and based on the essential real research required. My Momma done told me always to be suspicious of any odd man seeking to approach while denying polite request for ID.

Hank Ruark June 28, 2011 8:17 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Your opinion is yours, sir...mine is the general feeling within the profession, which I can still document via direct word from a number of old-timers still surviving... Do you have any special contacts there, or special preparation, or work experience, or academic background ? I stand by fact that TIMES is still considered lead newspaper by those in the profession who should be able to assess the circumstances via their own working contacts --if you insist, will have several send you email to that effect. if and when you have professional courtesy enough to reciprocate the fact I've sent mine to you now twice, with invitation to come direct. What's the problem ? Afraid...I might pick wrong brand of coffee ?

Mike June 28, 2011 7:05 pm (Pacific time)

Hank I imagine after many years of research you have considerable information at the ready. Do you think some of it may be dated, even possibly inaccurate? For example your stated belief that the New York Times is the nations cat's meow of papers: ".... Can you really imagine any hard=headed print-side manager, especially the top level gurus working for the nation's leading newspaper, falling into such a silly self-trap ???? !!!!!" The Wall Street Journal and USA Today are trouncing it for newspaper circulation. Plus the Times is shrinking while the other two are increasing their leads. Then in regards to the e-reader circulation, the Wall Street Journal has over 4 times the activity and is pulling away. The Detroit Free Press is number two and the NY Times is once again number three. Back in the 60's I had a subscription to the Times while overseas, but as time and editors came and went the paper no longer held my interest. Ditto for Time and Newsweek. Seems that the people demand and get the news they want, and they want it objective and as free as possible of agenda driven editing. Conservative v.s. Liberal in the news arena is no longer a mystery on what's selling. Of course there will always be arguments about whose the best, the most accurate, but in my opinion, people know what they want, and woe to those who try to fool them with falsehoods and agenda distractions. As you know, the Times has been selling their assets at a quick clip, and even with that billionaire from Mexico infusing gobs of dough, he may be cutting all ties. I say it's over, and like many of the other declining papers, they thought they would get bailouts like other large corporations. Not gonna happen, so they are becoming relentless in their [impotent] attacks on conservatives. wall-street-journal-is-clobbering-the-new-york-times-in-e-reader-subscriptions-2010-7 /// 25_n_856910.html#s273415andtitle=Wall_Street_Journal

Hank Ruark June 28, 2011 12:39 pm (Pacific time)

       You have my email address, sir:
        I suggest you send me yours via that protected medium saving privacy of your emailer, if that's of interest to you.
      THEN we can continue to beat hell out of our differing points of view on ideology --perhaps even over a friendly cup !-- and thus protect and help preserve access to Dan's good thread for others.
      That allows both of us full, honest, open, good faith dialog on matters open to very opposed and combative ideology, perpetrated by both political parties to the real detriment of the honest, open dialog which used to prevail widespread in all issues and problems --before being perverted by such as the Koch Brothers and their multi-billions lavished on making the political ideology level a stinking swamp of distortion, misstatement, misinformation and more...for  their own purposes...and also the widespread use of paid shills...paid either via dollars/direct or in other less direct psychological ways, and through a combination of source outlets cannily disguised as foundations and other legitimate modes for dialog content.
       I can assure you that for every point you make, here, now, I have at least five offsetting, fully authoritative, national source, non-ideological sources from which to choose  --as well as mine own highly-informed and passionate defense of the truths you neglect, distort, pervert and stand-on-head.
      After all, that's my ongoing, professional, still-active job as a professional writer --and I have the potent advantage of some 50 years worth of files, books, reports, articles. and trustworthy sources, since it so happens that this is the level and the content line on which I made mine own beginning...long ago, in Maine, where honest, open dialog is honored and demonstrated yearly and intermittently in town hall and similar modes of honest, democratic exchange of views.
       For any reader, a simple rapid check back over the thread/record will show, indisputably, a high proportion of Right Wing propaganda in all of Mike's content, some of it obviously copied from GOPSTER-Gang talking points published in the old McCarthyism days !  ("limousine liberals", "20 million new jobs" in R/R era, et al, et al)

      Here at S-N what we seek is open, honest, democratic (small-d !) dialog, built up by good faith effort to bring to attention of readers whatever participants can find or may have, adding to positive consideration of an ongoing problem or issue.

     We have absolutely no problem with opposition statements when built from truly good faith cogitation and common sense/sourcing by any participant who "does his/her own stuff" --but the repetitive reliance on the canned content of highly questionable sources is surely not what our readers wish to harvest here for their own good faith payment of attention, time, and full consideration --and it can only lead to further consideration of how such an open, honest, democratic channel as this one --within Dan's ongoing thread -- and others under the S-N management can best be protected.

      If the honest, open, democratic objective is to share points of view and reflections from the realities of our nation's history, direct contact between the two most-involved parties should be a welcome alternative.
     You have my emailer, sir: --and I await your response....Coffee's ready !!

Alberto June 28, 2011 1:53 pm (Pacific time)

So reading some of the posts it appears that the liberals have lost the debate, which is par for the course. If the left's cause was righteous there would be no need for violence or rudeness on their part. It would stand on it’s own merit. The conservatives never act offensively, but defensively when attacked, we know we are right and will not stoop to their level. But if we are pushed too far, they will see what Righteous Power is all about, total and complete. We are winning, the left has come completely un-hinged! Get out the popcorn and watch, for that Weiner pervert was just a warm-up!

hank Ruark June 27, 2011 8:16 am (Pacific time)

Mike: "Chowda" is Friday night for us, and we are two blocks from waterside, just across the Prom, on which I stagger a quarter-mile any time one or other of four sons can take me in case legs quit !! Coffee always ready, sir, and you are welcome anytime ! Dialog, like good coffee, that much more stimulating when shared face-to-face...

Mike June 26, 2011 6:42 pm (Pacific time)

DJ the Tarp funds have essentially been paid back as per the input Bush had in that bill regarding remuneration. It has been the Obama Administration that

wanted to re-stream these paid back funds along with their failed and ongoing Stimulus Bill Fiasco, but the law says no. The Stimulus bill, including

interest, will create in excess of a Trillion dollars of debt, but that pales to the trillions in debt Obama has cost us already. Regarding the rescue bill

by Bush and the "democratic" congress that wrote the bill, it was a bi-partisan bill, whereas all of Obama's bills have not been bi-partisan. In fact not one

Republican voted for the Stimulus Bill in which the democrats admitted not reading it before their "yes" vote. It appears quite clear that the conservatives

can see down the line. Obama has taken the exact opposite policies of Reagan and gotten the exact opposite of Reagan's results. Time will soon provide many

answers to some of these debates regarding what are the best economic policies to pursue, while many already know what has worked in the past and what has

not worked. The economic academics have provided well supported evidence that FDR prolonged the Depression with his policies in the 1930's, but the

Whitehouse personnel appear to be too busy playing golf and going on endless holidays. Maybe someone is also playing a fidle? Hank I'm familiar with many of

the coastal publications, we have family properties in Cannon Beach and Gearheart, not too far from your residence home. You like chowda?

I think Obama is weak but I still recall H.D.S. Greenway writing in the Boston Globe: “When you think of Bush and his team, it's hard to believe so much harm could be done to so many by so few.” 


Hank RUARK June 26, 2011 2:38 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Re "follow the crowd" on taste, sir, better watch yourself carefully in any bad city neighborhood with line waiting at apartment-house door... There are those who appreciate any flavor, but that maketh no differential for criteria created by the recognized world's best... But YOU do display some common sense, least you continue to read S-N. Re NYTIMES, easy-signs to see such as "bottom line" mean very little re the kind of tradition and history the TIMES has created...and family ownership is still healthy and working, despite the despoiling wishes of speculators. I'll venture to say that TIMES will still be there, grinding away as usual, long after both you and me have shipped out to whatever's next... Re future of print-on-paper, the digital format is developing some of its own signs of somnolescence which, in the long run, may well be the saving grace for "the next step" which always accompanies any new technology.. See any history of tech for full details. The best example I know is what started five years ago as one-weekly purchase on Oregon Coast, has now grown to six, all of which have gone broadsheet this week, are prospering, and making historic record of growth and service to their part because the region is highly difficult and costly for either cable or satellite-direct digital and in larger part because the inhabitants simply like print-reading better than screen-scrambling... Same situation in two other states, same ownership, of eight more...all doing likewise. Disclosure: My No. 2 son has just become Publisher/Editor of one of them, simultaneously with owner buy of regional business/news journal with footprint over whole area. His paper runs its own show, and continues fine success both content/wise and dollar/wise, after 107 years in-biz. If you can purchase any such in your area, "short" the stock and count your coming dollars soon...

Mike June 26, 2011 12:11 pm (Pacific time)

DJ, Obama has been in power for over 2 and 1/2 years, he owns the economy. You ever see the movie "Being There" with Peter Sellers? Look at the policies he has put into motion beginning in 2009 with the Stimulus Bill. That policy was promised to stop unemployment from going over 8%. When the democrats took over congress (they pass the money bills) the unemployment rate was at approx. 4%. Over 14 million unemployed now and the housing market is worse than the Depression period. I just call it like it is, and Obama and his staff have failed miserably. The majority of Americans now realize that, so he's going to be defeated in 2012 in a massive landslide, as will many other democrats in congress. Remember the 2010 election, with a focus on state legislatures? When conservatives gain power, they will have it for far far into the future. The same thing is happening in Canada and Europe, so that must really irritate the leftist liberals, but that's what the majority want. Hear them ROAR!Hank, The New York Times is fading away, and though it is trying to turn things around with a digital news process, it will not succeed, for it no longer appeals to those interested in real news. Just look at their bottom line. You know how to interpret the Stock Market don't you? Advertisers sure do.

In October 2008 GW Bush (remember him)  "signed into law an unprecedented $700 billion plan to rescue the U.S. financial system, one of the largest-ever government interventions in the nation's economy -- and almost certainly not the last."  (WSJ) What else do you know that I don't know?

Lynn Simmons June 26, 2011 11:39 am (Pacific time)

You're done; don't waste any more of my time.

Mike June 26, 2011 8:58 am (Pacific time)

Hank I lost count years ago regarding the number of times that I completely disagreed with critics. It has been over books, movies, political candidates/issues, plays,food, sports teams, and on and on. Have you had similar experiences, or do you allow critics significant sway over your decision-making in regards to book purchases, or other matters they assess? You mentioned the Bible and Shakespeare, so how does that apply to Dutch? Afterall most things critics assess is based [generally] on subjective opinion. When I see long lines of people at an eating establishment, a movie, or spending their dollars on other consumables, and most importantly time, I take that as a sign as more relevant than a written opinion. Of course I just don't follow the "crowd" but use it as part of my decision-making process. By the way I have read "Dutch" and several other biographies on President Ronald Reagan, and fully understand those who consider Dutch to be a book more favorable with people who are not fully invested in understanding an objective analysis of this incredibly successful and popular leader. Afterall he accomplished so much, and all while dealing with a democratic congress that fortunately had a weak leadership, especially in the House of Reps. Otherwise those millions of jobs his policies helped create would not have happened, and we would have stayed in the Carter economic malaise for many more years. That's why curently we must have a change of top leadership and maybe get a leader to help pull us out of the current economic divebomb that Obama's policies have created for us. Pretty sure when people write his biography it will be a very short one, especially when discussing his accomplishments that had any true merit. No doubt there will be a wide range of critical opinions, but history will have the last word, as it does over the literary blemishes a few people find meets their narrow agenda, in my opinion.

DJ: What are you smoking? Obama (and I'm not defending him, I think he's weak and easily led) ) inherited eight years of Bush mismanagement and incompetence (even malfeasance) and yet you refer to  " the current economic divebomb that Obama's policies have created for us." Hank calls guys like you shills and I think he has used the perfect term.

hank Ruark June 26, 2011 8:08 am (Pacific time)

To all: For your general knowledge, now even that the target of conscienceless so-called "conservatives" here, distorting even known facts about the book publication industry for their ideological satisfaction.. The NY TIMES is accused of suppressing many --if not all-- new conservative books simply because of their conservative bent. The truth is that the TIMES, great daily as it is and has been for many decades, serves the same fully relentless market as any other publication. If it ever undertook to suppress books on ideological basis it would find the book publishers so adversely affected right on the neck of the advertising department within hours... ready to withdraw an important portion of their advertising agreements with the TIMES. That's the well-known truth since each and every book publisher MUST, to survive, handle each and every type and level of new book --or specialize so well that the limited-line keeps them in business. That is also simple common sense known by most persons, but sometimes distorted and perverted by shills --paid or psychologically-rewarded-- when enlisted to attack an informational source, for the impacts they can have on an uninformed and naive portion of the usual audience-run. Can you really imagine any hard=headed print-side manager, especially the top level gurus working for the nation's leading newspaper, falling into such a silly self-trap ???? !!!!! Its use here demonstrates complete contempt for readership level and management/sponsor --and most knowledgeable persons will remember the occasion and the perpetrators, when encountered in other channels.

Hank Ruark June 25, 2011 8:27 pm (Pacific time)

L.S.: If the "buying public" is or ever was the final authority on literary merit, we'd never have seen the Bible or any of Shakespeare preserved... you do realize your statement values total sales/return (read: dollars) above all else, which in itself demonstrates the foundation principle of what you pass off as "conservatism", in defiance of what it really is and its true value when understood. There's a name for the kind of book you cite, almost always written as a way to build access; and a post as reporter doth not a biographer make... .if one knows how to tell the difference, one being the award of a Pulitzer, which should surely settle the matter vs quality and value, as well as credibility. Has your man ever won one ? OR, for that matter, any comparable journalistic prize ? Is he still at the same post, or has he disappeared ? Your "naive" statement nails down the other symptoms already apparent, and I agree with Dan on disposal of still another shill... sorry to disappoint the control/master but if you can't do better than this, he better be doing something (or someone) else.

Hank Ruark June 25, 2011 11:43 am (Pacific time)

To all: Unfortunately we have a few here who continue to denigrate DUTCH, the Pulitzer Prize-winner biog of Reagan, done by his own selection of biographer, supported by more than nine years of eager support and full participation in every request from author, Edmund Morris (even including visit to his birthplace escorted by the writer -- one of the most poignant passages in the volume !) and personal endorsement by use of copies as gifts. That latter I know by personal statement from a former member of his staff, now deceased, for which I have no documentation but his long record of truthful statements, in a hand-written note kept for all these years, lost somewheres within a five-drawer file. SO I must conclude that those who now sign on or support such further attack on this book will continue despite any authoritative statement anyone can ever make, documented or otherwise --which comes as no surprise whatsoever to me and others working in the same fields of writing where cognitive research and linguistics long ago showed that very large percentages of uninformed persons, even when informed properly, will continue to support the conclusions they had already reached before the new authoritative information reached them. The New York Review of Books is the final authority --the pinnacle of professional voices vs reviews and their accuracy-- in this country. For those who may now --especially after seeing this note !-- wish to test their own acceptance of reality and fact in this matter, I suggest you seek out the original reviews published when this book first appeared, and when it won the closely-following Pulitzer Prize. Do you really wish to set your partially-informed judgement of reviewing understandings against those of the NY Review and the Pulitzer Prize selection group ?? I know not all have access to the NYRv; so if that's a problem simply seek professional help from your nearest college librarian -- and if you wish to use what they tell you in any way, kindly ID-them with Internet access when you comment further here, for checkable access on what they actually state. Forgive this testing follow-up, but long painful experience has shown by demonstration and continued action that some few here are not above both misstatement and potent perversion of known and checkable fact for their own ideological purposes. OR is it more likely that they are only suffering from that erroneous cogitation/process error to which this long-continued research surely points ?

Hank Ruark June 24, 2011 7:40 pm (Pacific time)

Mark:  "Liberal" NJ ? NOT the state I know about, sir....was born in Elizabeth City NJ commute'suburb of NYC where Dad was employed... and have kept tabs on it ever since...

hank Ruark June 25, 2011 12:28 pm (Pacific time)

Anon 2, below,June 19, 2011 5:18 pm: Sir or madam as case may be: You wrote:" ...if you go to and find web traffic, you will see that salem-news does not even beat statesmjournal. A local news website. You can also type in "" to see traffic. " S-N, by its very nature of being --an alternative daily as Internet website--could not possibly be compared to the outmoded, print/ on/paper format and intention of the S-J. But give S-N 50 years and millions of adverting-dollar revenue, and you will be amazed at what it will become and be able to do for its community. Which is in strong, continuing contrast to the S-J, with which I happen to be well experienced both personally and professionally, and on which I kept a professional file for some 30 years as I was intermittently a Salem resident and active citizen. You need to see the book THE CHAIN GANG: One Newspaper vs the Gannett Empire; Richard McCord;U.Missouri Press, 1996. ISBN 0-8262-1375-8. The Salem Library has more than one copy, you can be sure. When you hold it in hand, turn first and foremost to the varied and numerous reviews on the back cover, from major and minor sources nationwide. The Gannett chain has long earned a notorious reputation within and around the journalistic profession; this book details one incident among many long the stuff of painful memory within the profession --but that one key incident, which starts off the many others detailed, happened to detail the death by journalistic murder of a Salem, Oregon longtime community paper. McCord reported in depth and detail on that incident, and as planned was immediately then attacked in deep detail and depth within his own journalistic domain. The result made clear the impact of such "competition" in a way that gained national interest, as did McCord's book. Nothing much has changed since the McCord book; the same kinds of cutthroat enterprise continue via the same groups and means --including millions of advertising income siphoned off from any place possible within any chain, to support other enterprising beginnings. That's where extremely expensive and staff-demanding new publications like USA TODAY come from, and it is also why the supporting foundation units in any chain must "contribute" --sometimes heavily, and always cotinuously-- to the wellbeing of the new-one via the mutual magic they enjoy in corporate accounting. For those who know the profession from close professional contact, that's one major reason for the denigration and near-collapse of what was once an admirable supporting foundation for media activity to assist and build our communities --no longer possible via the print-on-paper mode, which is sinking mostly of its own weight and contradictions, across the whole nation. We are fortunate to have one alternative developing via the S-N and its counterparts, but do not forget that the S-N is the ONLY one standing on its own, which explains in large part its much wider scope and focus, while still preserving attention on both Oregon and local matters for the most meaningful mix possible.

Lynn Simmons June 25, 2011 12:18 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel when Eugene Debs experienced his legal difficulties it was during the Wilson (1913-21) Administration, a highly liberal President. When Debs was pardoned, Republican/conservative President Harding (1921-23) was in office, and he commuted his sentence.

Experienced his "legal difficulties"? Get real!!! It's the equivalent of saying that Jesus had "legal difficulties" with the Romans. Debs was up against the entire capitalist system. At his sentencing hearing he said, in part: "I  am thinking this morning of the men in the mills and factories; I am thinking of the women who, for a paltry wage, are compelled to work out their lives; of the little children who, in this system, are robbed of their childhood, and in their early, tender years, are seized in the remorseless grasp of Mammon, and forced into the industrial dungeons, there to feed the machines while they themselves are being starved body and soul...."

You, I presume have no children and no soul...

I can't speak for SN or for other writers, but for my stories, you are no longer welcome and you comments will be deleted,  

Hank there is an individual that has #6 New York Times number one best sellers, and to date not one of those books has been reviewed by the NY Times, or many other reviewers because it appears when the authors are conservative they shy away, but the buying public is the final authority, and that's how it works in the free market system. Needless to say the book "Dutch" has been called fantasy (and other negative names) by historians and others close to President Reagan. Have you had a chance to read (or review) "Rawhide Down" by liberal Washington Post reporter Del Quentin Wilber? It's an excellent insight into how President Reagan was an individual that could keep his wits about himself under incredible stress (after being shot), and how his staff demonstrated the keen and exceptional leadership that Americans count on during dangerous situations. A brief excerpt from this excellent and highly professional journalist: "History, Wilber believes, will make a positive  judgment on Reagan.“I think Reagan will be viewed by historians as one of the probably more successful U.S. presidents over time in terms of getting his agenda through [a Democratic congress] and his goals accomplished--whether they were accomplished after he left or not,” said Wilber.“You know, he left office with the highest approval rating of any president,” said Wilber. “Now, he is looked at as having accomplished winning the Cold War, reducing the threat of nuclear war, altering the face of basically the entire Europe,  changing the debate about taxes in this country--for it will never be the same again. He even helped save Social Security.”

Hank Ruark June 25, 2011 11:41 am (Pacific time)

To all: Unfortunately we have a few here who continue to denigrate DUTCH, the Pulitzer Prize-winner biog of Reagan, done by his own selection of biographer, supported by more than nine years of eager support and full participation in every request from author, Edmund Morris (even including visit to his birthplace escorted by the writer -- one of the most poignant passages in the volume !) and personal endorsement by use of copies as gifts. That latter I know by personal statement from a former member of his staff, now deceased, for which I have no documentation but his long record of truthful statements, in a hand-written note kept for all these years, lost somewheres within a five-drawer file. SO I must conclude that those who now sign on or support such further attack on this book will continue despite any authoritative statement anyone can ever make, documented or otherwise --which comes as no surprise whatsoever to me and others working in the same fields of writing where cognitive research and linguistics long ago showed that very large percentages of uninformed persons, even when informed properly, will continue to support the conclusions they had already reached before the new authoritative information reached them. The New York Review of Books is the final authority --the pinnacle of professional voices vs reviews and their accuracy-- in this country. For those who may now --especially after seeing this note !-- wish to test their own acceptance of reality and fact in this matter, I suggest you seek out the original reviews published when this book first appeared, and when it won the closely-following Pulitzer Prize. Do you really wish to set your partially-informed judgement of reviewing understandings against those of the NY Review and the Pulitzer Prize selection group ?? I know not all have access to the NYRv; so if that's a problem simply seek professional help from your nearest college librarian -- and if you wish to use what they tell you in any way, kindly ID-them with Internet access when you comment further here, for checkable access on what they actually state. Forgive this testing follow-up, but long painful experience has shown by demonstration and continued action that some few here are not above both misstatement and potent perversion of known and checkable fact for their own ideological purposes. OR is it more likely that they are only suffering from that erroneous cogitation/process error to which this long-continued research surely points ?

Lynn Simmons June 25, 2011 10:50 am (Pacific time)

Hank Ruark what I took out of your quote about what the former mayors of Chicago would do to the poster Bill, is some extreme violence: "...blood on the floor...and you..." Since you acknowledged living in Chicago for a relatively long period and that you have claimed to be a trained observer (learn that fighting in WWII, and augmented in other areas?), it would be reasonable that your extrapolation of violence is portrayed as how you meant it to be visualized/interpreted. Not real warm and fuzzy, but accurate in terms of the incredibly violent evidence that was linked by poster Mark. This simply makes the poster Bill's point. As far as the Daley's political ideology, pretty clear they are not conservatives, and they always ran on non-conservative platforms, especially where the 2nd Amendment was concerned...even ignoring the recent Supreme Court decision on that matter dealing with their firearm policies. And the elder Daley sure new about counting votes during the 1960 election. So if they do not fall under the liberal umbrella of "your" definition, then what are they, ideologically speaking? How about current mayor Rahm Emannual, whose Israeli father is a Zionist's Zionist? Rahm made bundles of cash when he was on the board of Fannie Mae, as we taxpayers got hosed, so is he a liberal? He also has quite a mouth regarding colorful obsenities (hide your childfren from this liberal!), seems people who pass themselves off as the antithesis of conservatives are mean-spirited and pretty greedy in some cases, what do you think? Maybe we are about to see the ol'accuse others of what you are doing, or some other distraction? Alinsky- style methodologies that Americans are quickly outgrowing, in my opinion.

hank Ruark June 25, 2011 8:58 am (Pacific time)

J Robinson 6/18: Editorial habit forces me to check again every so often on Comments here...sometimes turns up major point needing repetition. Yours-cited shows clear symptoms of several severe inhibiting and denigrating bad habits in the word-processing we must all do to cogitate or Comment. You charge that by choice and action millions of those feeling and demonstrating Progressive policy and its foundations conspired --either unknowingly or via mutual action-- to endanger and disembowel the key word "liberal" and its derivations. Not only is that highly improbable, sir, but it is also cognitively and linguistically impossible. As any dictionary-producer will confirm,what makes a word change meaning is the surround substantially placed upon it by those millions who use it. The way to influence that, for whatever purpose, is well-known among those who study propaganda and its successful applications in the real world. Notably, everr since pre -War I times, this has been not only the advertising industries but also many governments, at all levels, often to the detriment and deep damage to democracy that we have experienced in this nation, due to the 50-year attack effort via think tank, every form of media, and practicing small-group and other passionate participants from the Far Right. There are books written on this whole subject which you may wish to seek out; if you need a reference to some 20 or so, come direct to, and I will send you a select list at no fee...for all others, fee is $10 since this is a long-offered professional product, first begun while I edited a learning media journal in Chicago, and constantly updated for my own purposes.

Hank Ruark June 25, 2011 8:04 am (Pacific time)

Mark: Was struck by closed-content similarity of something you just wrote to the point I was making just then about delayed translations from decomposing talking points from long-outmoded and disproven GOPster garbage in print yet... You wrote: "quite frankly more for people who are not motivated to become independent, when health/diabilities are not issues." Albeit both verbose and awkward that's mirror-image of familiar fantasy from that period. That's nearly worthy of the Reagan Award, sir, perhaps not quite equal to his favorite, the one about the classic welfare mother who had five Caddies in her family of four, and did all the grocery shopping with welfare money BTW, despite determined research by more than one wellknown writer then and since, that particular welfare participant has never been identified.. But Mark, you ain't any Reagan even with these small similarities now so full and clear here. He was a poor and deluded actor of small mentality and capacity doing the best he could with what he had.. While you seem to be a cut or two above that, albeit either so scared of close ideological encounter or of something rotting in your past to avoid the full ID and description which is surely one side of any civilized conversation --and due the readers here as simple, ordinary democratic courtesy, especially when multiple-requested by another participant.

hank Ruark June 25, 2011 7:49 am (Pacific time)

Mark, Bill, et al: In reviewing recent comments, often a most discommoding and worrisome act here, I find overwhelming reliance by some practioners of the "conservative strain" on what is most certainly the content of talking points prepared by backwards-GOPster groups as long ago as the McCarthy-era smeardom. One of the virtues of shorthand content analysis is the nearly-sure spotting of just such terms...and when the actual words/used conform precisely with what others in their own strong research have cited, there is little doubt left that some of our most verbose and verdantly-virtuous defenders-and-attackers from that ideological dark cave are relying heavily on what was surely produced by some one else, more than twenty years ago ! For further analysis of some 50 or samples taken from various threads --all on S-N-- come direct to for the printout, now in preparation; fee only $10 for this professional product, deduction only ethical since it was so much fun to prove up this point... Please, friends from within that dark cave, can you at least take the cogitative effort to reprocess those talking points into your own words ? Given the magic of open, honest, and democratic dialog, we might then even learn a little more of the vast void within that cave as you take the trouble to translate from the idiom of the early 20th Century, where most of the then-originating "talking points" began. Cognitive and linguistic research long ago proved up this phenomenon of the human "acts of speech", with materials drawn --you guessed !!-- from the early propaganda studies just preceding and following War I...for those few who may be familiar with Keynesian texts, citations within some of them may be recalled.

Barbi June 24, 2011 10:39 pm (Pacific time)

Way to go on this essay, helped a ton.

hank Ruark June 24, 2011 7:36 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: Your excerpt, sir, is accurate...and for anyone able to understand straight English there's no question of intent on my part to denigrate and defy the accusation by Bill that the Daleys were "liberal".... Democrat they would admit to being, since that was unquestionable. But "liberal" ? Never,by any possible distortion of meaning. Nice try, M, but still redolent of your upside-ican-be-made-ito DOWN approach, as in other areas, too. Re rest of yours, future always easy to write since nobody really knows and thus anything goes, if couched in close and comfortable terms to what others want to hear...another of those many findings from cognitive and linguistic work of which you seem so totally unaware. BTW, notice you refuse to whip away mask and put on record from whence you cometh via straight-honest name and ID-information re education, profession (if any) and other pertinent cedibility factors. Obviously you prefer to push that unfair and manipulative advantage, which --again, from research !-- is always a dead giveaway to the intent to distort and pervert and manipulate. SO one more time: Honest,open ID with education, work experience, and profession if that you have been openlyandpublicly challenged, any further evasion can only be seen as admission there's a reason for that mask...

Mark June 24, 2011 2:37 pm (Pacific time)

Hank I do not understand your point. To an earlier poster you alluded to the Daley's (previous Chicago mayors) that they would not stand for major violence while they were running the city, and that is not supported by the evidence which I provided earlier. Would you respond to that in terms of liberal/conservative reaction/leadership? An excerpt: Poster "BILL""...Chicago's murder and general violent crime rate clearly show's what happens when liberals are running the show."  Hank: "Have you ever lived in Chicago, sir ?!!!! If either of the two reigning Daleys heard
your accusation of their liberal administration, there'd be hell-to-pay and perhaps even blood on the floor --and
you. Happens I spent decade there..." Sir, it is not me creating a distraction, just responding to a tangential
creation. And no Dan, no black brush on my part, where or what is it that I wrote that you think that was my
intention? Frankly he sounds like a very interesting person as I address in my next post.

Mark June 24, 2011 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Dan thanks for the update,When time allows I will do some more research on Mr. Debs, for he does sound interesting outside of his socialist leanings, which is quite frankly more for people who are not motivated to become independent, when health/diabilities are not issues. Generally socialism has a point when it simply tumbles, usually when other people's money dries up, or a tyranny develops. Cannot think of any pure or even quasi-socialist government that has succeeded without a heavy dose of capitalism guided by the free market system. I guess one could argue that is what we have, but I think maybe Greece would be a better example, and how are they doing? In fact we are starting to move towards another political/economic model that will incorporate socialistic-type policies, but free market capitalism will continue to be prominent, even gaining strength as we develop our energy resources and become 100% energy independent, probably in 20 years if not sooner. Oh Dan, on past comments the "goings on" in Wisconsin has been a popular topic. Have you seen what is happening in ultra-liberal New Jersey? New Jersey lawmakers (even several democrats) on Thursday approved a broad rollback of benefits for 750,000 government workers and retirees, the deepest cut in state and local costs in memory, in a major victory for Gov. Chris Christie and a once-unthinkable setback for the state’s powerful public employee unions. It appears the highly conservative Governor Christie did what the Wisconsin governor did without all the fireworks. Public union workers will need to kick in a bit more for their benefits, on par with private sector employees. The retirement age will need to go up slightly. There will be a temporary suspension of cost of living increases for current retirees (are disabled veterans and SS retirees have not has a cola increase under the Obama "hope and change" for two years now). Oh, and the collective bargaining rights of the unions over benefits packages will be curbed. (Any of this sounding familiar?). It's all about available resources(money) and these high taxing liberal states are running out quicker than the right to work states.Government spending and itself, must shrink.

Mark June 24, 2011 6:22 pm (Pacific time)

Hank I do not understand your point. To an earlier poster you alluded to the Daley's (previous Chicago mayors) that they would not stand for major violence while they were running the city, and that is not supported by the evidence which I provided earlier. Would you respond to that in terms of liberal/conservative reaction/leadership? An excerpt: Poster "BILL""...Chicago's murder and general violent crime rate clearly show's what happens when liberals are running the show." Hank: "Have you ever lived in Chicago, sir ?!!!! If either of the two reigning Daleys heard your accusation of their liberal administration, there'd be hell-to-pay and perhaps even blood on the floor --and you. Happens I spent decade there..." Sir, it is not me creating a distraction, just responding to a tangential creation. And no Dan, no black brush on my part, where or what is it that I wrote that you think that was my intention? Frankly he sounds like a very interesting person as I address in my next post.

Hank Ruark June 24, 2011 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Mark: I always re-read both comments and responses, and so discover now that you may not have been in such good faith as I had assumed...yours pointed up by Dan surely smeareth Debs by simple implication, easily missed, as I did when captured by referene to mine own "transgressions" --as you saw them. See ? Even dialog has its pitfalls when pursued relentlessly and without due conscience via those whose intent is on "the black side", as yours now surely appears...

Hank Ruark June 24, 2011 12:09 pm (Pacific time)

Are you purposely reversing what I wrote ? I was amazed at the words atributing anything liberal attached to the Daleys, and have been well acquainted with what you write now from long ago even prior to my stay for a decade there. It was my good fortune to work with college-starter kids there in the Time/Life Books office selling sets by first six-hour shift rang uo zero books...but my third set record unsurpassed for several years, with some hundreds of kids I helped to train. The zero was result of emotional stress re-toning voice despite my best efforts to relax...and when I did loosen up, the rest became history-there. The kids were marvelous and I got invited home to dinner every so often, another outstanding learning experience for a once-naive Mainer....

My intent with content here was to contrast the reality with what was implied, via my life experience there then in several areas and with the kids working to "lean forward" (!) despite desperate entrapment in what should have been an amazing city rather than one so desperately deteriorating.

SO what does your interpretation tell us ? How easy it is, even with good faith on both sides (known on mine, and presumed on yours !) to deeply misunderstand the same words...which may give us more than a gentle clue re what and how dialog can and should work --since here it has brought the emergence of the realities involved which we both understood.

More times than not, such reversal of meaning "standing the facts on their head', is a purposeful distortional technique adapted widely by the Far Right, with definite and specific advice on how to do so from a list of talking points...allathis a matter of linguist and cognitive research, a longtime pursuit of mine motivated by the same necessities in print materials as drive this explanation (in good faith !) to you and other readers.

You might wish to consider a bit more carefully --and possibly even re-read !-- before allathathardwork to refute my perhaps somewhat obscured content, distorted, if at all, by emotion and memory than by intent.

Have a good day, sir !

Mark June 24, 2011 8:10 am (Pacific time)

Daniel thanks for providing an excerpt from Eugene Debs, do you know what crime(s) he was actually charged and
convicted of? Sedition/Treason or something similar?Hank you are misinformed about the violence going on in Chicago as per reams of easily obtained data on the violence in that city. Is this more evidence showing Liberal v.s Conservative governing capabilities?"Chicago is three times as deadly as NYC and twice as violent as LA." "...among the nation's 10 largest cities, each with a population of one million or more, only Philadelphia had higher rates of murder and violent crime than Chicago." It's corruption is another matter, and unlikely to abate considering past trends in leadership, which the Daley's certainly nourished with their incredible high levels of poor governance. Hank, over 90% of other urban locations (many also loaded with high crime) are safer than chicago. In fact as the previous poster mentioned, Illinois is the only state without CHL's, and those communities with them available for law abiding citizens have far lower violence rates. So your claimed info on the Daley's crime control in Chicago is grossly erroneous.. Maybe it's not "blood on the floor" as you suggest, but possibly some other liquid served in frosty mugs? Going back historically to the early 30's shows above average violence in Chicago, did you live there before then? Maybe the elephant never got touched by you Hank? Chicago's murder rate was nearly three times higher than New York City's last year, according to The Chicago Reporter's analysis of preliminary 2009 crime statistics, released late last month by the FBI. Collectively, according to a Chicago Reporter analysis, Chicago's 11th and 15th police districts on the West Side had a higher murder rate last year than New Orleans, the nation's deadliest city in 2009. Meanwhile, on the South Side, collectively, the 6th and 7th districts had a higher rate of violent crime than St. Louis, the nation's leading city for violent crime per capita in 2009.

Yes, Debs was convicted under the Espionage Act. Taken in context, he acted no differently than the opposition of the millions of people forty odd years later of the War in Vietnam. In Debs time, sedition could be anything that went against the corporate interests. In your first sentence you tried to black brush Debs so the casual, inadequately informed  reader would think that Debs/Socialism were bad things. He ran for president while in prison and received more than 900,000 write in votes. When released from prison, he returned to his home town of Terre Haute and was greeted by bands and a crowd of 50,000. He was, simply put, one of many victims of the corporate machine.  

Hank Ruark June 23, 2011 9:29 pm (Pacific time)

Bill: To hide behind distorted, partial and surely ideologically-expressed statement is a standard symptom of several severe psychiatric disorders. (Documentation available: $25 fee -or seek it yourself via several easily-accessed Internet-sites !) It is also standard first-act propaganda-prover checkpoint, as any 101 course for intelligence activities will verify, often used by paid shills seeking to worm way into attention via any method possible including flat-out lies and inverted-statements standing known facts on their heads. Any competent editor can make easy decision on such content as you continue to offer, with nothing but your own unsupportable --and wildly erroneous-- statements as benediction, especially re points on a specialized channel for which the editor has a wealth of information as well as specialized experience --which, cometothinkofit, is WHY he/she edits that thread ! For your own credibility --thrown into question by the highly questionable content you offer-- it is now surely necessary for you to state precisely what your checkable status is via same information all of us with open and professional records do, for reader comparison of what each of us reports here. Your ONLY response, sir, is to make sure we all know what and who you are, as in any other civilized conversation, including your ID and education beyond h.s., (if any); and any other special qualification you can prove up, as all the rest of us do as simple matter of professional courtesy to the readers. Without that open, honest, democratic ID-on-request which is a sure sign of civilized and responsible exchange among those of good faith in any American community, your continued imposition on time, space and attention here is unwarranted and unacceptable.

Hank Ruark June 23, 2011 3:48 pm (Pacific time)

Bill: You wrote: " Hank your statement: "If we use body-count as major criterion for competence, then residents of Chicago better start rush for exits !" You sure hit the nail on that one supporting my point, thanks. AT the present time Wisconsin is about to become the 49th state to pass some sort of law that allows for concealed handgun licenses, with just Illinois still actively violating the people's rights under the 2nd Amendment. Chicago's murder and general violent crime rate clearly show's what happens when liberals are running the show." Have you ever lived in Chicago, sir ?!!!! If either of the two reigning Daleys heard your accusation of their liberal administration, there'd be hell-to-pay and perhaps even blood on the floor --and you. Happens I spent decade there --lived in several areas including highest/cost LS Drive "around corner from The Drake" as well as "neighborhoods"-- and worked with all kinds and levels from CEO's of major corporation to teen-agers black and asst. colors, selling books via phone at Time/Life where I trained 'em... Mine doth NOT support yours sir, even given considerable distort/the/sentence effort as usual with ideologically-ill "conservatives" hiding under once-decent label what it is they actually stand for, in depth and bloody detail, which your awkward content here is now revealing with every added and still further-distorted "point". Re Wisconsin events, anyone canny enough to stir a mouseful of Internet knows by now that some near-dozen GOPster-color "Governors" are hard at work to earn their keep via further class warfare attack, with Wisconsin being one of earliest and still active. First skirmish was over so-called "collective bargaining"-right denial to public sector workers, reflecting human rights tragedy since one of earliest enactments of that sensible law was in that very state, under extremely different and far more Enlightened leadership. ( Don't let cap-E bother you, don't expect YOU to understand it !) Given your now-well/demonstrated mental state and more than sufficient cues to your psychological competence, cannot close without warning you to " watch where you point that damn thing ! --You'll end up shooting out what little brains are left !!"

Hank Ruark June 23, 2011 3:31 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Re nearly all current polls, any competent wordsmith can construct "easy-answer" setup for any target audience, to get 99%-certain responses, esp. if poll to be administered via current less-costly methods now used. When polling honestly done via face-to-face queries using content built as originally conceived --via cross/test vs known audience-- THEN you could count on results around 52/55 percent of time --if you were lucky. Massive computerization nowadays simple massifies same errors by million-factor, depending on computer setup and how badly queries constructed. SO suck away, sir ! If you like the flavor, flick the mouse a bit and you can find others even heartier and more-hurried, more-desperately/distorted, from any shade of political spectrum...and even internationally-based. Only the naive now count on polling as precise and responsible source for solid numbers --but of course you would not know that, unless involved in the industry, which maketh many millions more than ever feeding such stuff to your kind and level of tribal noncogitators. For documentation come direct to, flat fee $25, to include current, older, and some ancient stuff as used in production experience over past 50 years -- I started in early '40s while filing United Press wire in New England from Boston, with some early pollsters known now for invention of some methods...

Bill June 23, 2011 3:05 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, I see where you are coming from, and it exposes the major flaw in both the American and Canadian educational systems beginning at the university level around 1964. I'm assuming you started your undergraduate program after 1964, correct? From my extensive experience dealing with those who failed to receive the knowledge exposure that I did, those on the left generally refer to Nazism as being far right because of the master race idea that was used as an organizing tool. The fact is that eugenics were more a part of leftist thought than conservative thought.

The other reason is that the Nazis purged the radical socialists along with the communists before they even started killing the Jews. The socialists that were purged were not the “progressives”, though, they were the utopian socialists who believed that the people could and should govern themselves and in shared ownership of property. The communists and radical socialists in Germany at that time were being stirred up by Russia.

Hitler in a telegram to Roosevelt: “...the quintessence of the German State philosophy which finds its expression in the slogan, ‘The public weal transcends the interests of the individual.’ “That is definitely not conservative.

Just a little weapon for fighting the unions if you don't mind. As always check the information out for yourselves.
The unionists are always calling conservatives Nazis who want to outlaw the unions like Hitler did. The only problem is that Hitler didn't outlaw unions, he disbanded the Weimar unions and forced them to reorganize under the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF). The DAF was made up of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. Multiple unions were too hard to control so combining them solidified their support for the reich

Its also important to see the symbol of the DAF to get an idea of the reality of nazi unionists. I urge everyone to research this stuff and arm yourselves with the knowledge.

Eugene Debs was a  five-time Socialist party candidate for president from 1900 to 1920.  Before being sentenced to federal prison in 1918 for making a speech opposing U.S. participation in World War I (yes, that was a crime), he spoke to the court:

“I believe, in common with all Socialists, that this nation ought to own and control its own industries. I believe, as all Socialists do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly owned -- that industry, the basis of our social life, instead of being the private property of the few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of all . . . I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.”

I don't think that Hitler, Stalin, at al come within a light year of Debs's socialism. 

I'm with Eugene on this. 


Hank Ruark June 23, 2011 10:09 am (Pacific time)

MRB: Did you live through the real Great Depression ? I'll venture you did NOT, since if any living, breathing person with a real heart had done so, you would not --could not-- write as you just did here. My first teaching year was in Maine lumbermill city where mill had burned down...we had kids fainting from hunger almost daily, and conditions so bad we had to live in town ten miles away and commute... Like it or not, Rand and her followers buy into extreme selfishness attitude, with tremendous damage to all concerned. Re welfare and other overhanging trillions, we put ourselves there by what we allowed to happen during many decades...and now must face and cope with consequences...IF, that is, we're REALLY Christian in working attitudes and actions as well as empty words, from Scripture or not... !!! We can start with 10 percent off all those magnifique CEO and sports figure salaries, simply as Christian act on the record for GREAT PR --at much lower cost than revolution sure to come. (Note small-r: denotes civil and peaceful further development without violence, if we are as wise as we think we are...

Bill June 23, 2011 8:11 am (Pacific time)

Dan that was some pretty interesting comments on Ayn Rand, it has prompted me to evaluate the sources you provided, thanks. In terms of governing, all one has to do is tally the deaths under "Leftist" regimes, and those under conservative governance, to see who provides the most positive significant benefit for their citizen's quality of life. Actually just go back rather recently, historically speaking, to 1917 Russia up to present day. Under Stalin (and others) it is estimated the radical leftist's of the USSR killed over 60 million, Mao over 100 million, and on and on the tally increases. What is the body count tally for any Christian conservative political power going back to 1917? By the way Hitler was a far left socialist, as was Castro and so many others in 3rd world countries. In terms of a power that has a religious (sic) guiding foundation that spreads killing violence around the world, especially against those who do not share their faith, then that's a pretty easy answer. Hank your statement: "If we use body-count as major criterion for competence, then residents of Chicago better start rush for exits !" You sure hit the nail on that one supporting my point, thanks. AT the present time Wisconsin is about to become the 49th state to pass some sort of law that allows for concealed handgun licenses, with just Illinois still actively violating the people's rights under the 2nd Amendment. Chicago's murder and general violent crime rate clearly show's what happens when liberals are running the show.This is also true in all those urban area's where we have liberals governing. The same thing is also reflected in diminishing school performances and job creation in these gloomy locations.

Just to set the mythology straight: Hitler, Mao and Stalin were not leftists, they were totalitarian dictators. Socialism is something that comes from the people and goes up; it is never successfully implemented from the top down. Castro could be classed as a leftist in that the revolution he led ousted a brutal right-wing dictator (supported by the U.S.) and set up a system that was supposed to be the opposite.

I have learned something from your comments. In the 1960s the humanist psychologist coined the expression: When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And so it is with right wing ideologues.  When a person looks at the world through right-wing ideology, everything else becomes left-wing or leftist. The tell tale is your use of the term, Right wing ideologues cannot see anyone else as a leftist; they are always "radical leftist's" (sic) or "far left"--from your comment above. I've noticed it before that  there is almost always an adjective to qualify the noun (left),. I didn't realize its significance until now.

You might, from reading my sources come to understand that Ayn Rand was certifiable but I don't see you moving from your ideological stance. As a result we will talk past each other. This reminds me of Carver's law from the 1930s: Left-wingers only read left-wing literature; right-wingers don't read anything.

downtown dave June 23, 2011 12:24 am (Pacific time)

I will criticize the idea that their is no God.

Michael R. Brown June 22, 2011 8:45 pm (Pacific time)

It isn't the case that Ayn Rand was against charity. She was personally charitable to friends and donated to help Israel defend itself. In her own words: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

Her point was that you have to have a healthy non-charitable sector in order to be able to provide charity, and that economic freedom (and nothing else) provides that health. How much can one donate if one is starving or dies at age 35, as before technology one did.

Government welfare is a perversion of charity because it is ill-managed and cripples the productive sector over time. Look at the tens of trillions in unfunded liabilities that are going to cripple our economy; and it's just going to get worse unless we get the system right.

One part of the foolishness of the recent debates about Rand is the idea that agreeing with Rand's prediction and diagnoses in "Atlas Shrugged" - the accuracy of which has been demonstrated in the last few years to a nicety - somehow magically commits one to agreement with her total philosophy. Would this argument be extended to an atheist leftist who recommends Tolstoy or Victor Hugo?

The other part is a specific misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is not a pro-Statism religion; indeed, given who killed their Savior, it tends to the anti-State. (This is something the left has not yet dealt with.) Nowhere in the Bible does it say that wealth should be expropriated and redistributed by the dubious means of government structures; it speaks of personal and *voluntary* charity. One might add, looking at the horrific debt and unfunded liabilities situation that the U.S. is in right now, that the Bible and Jesus were wise in staying away from government panaceas.

This entire kabuki charade is in bad faith. The Bible does not advocate any Progressive notions of "economic justice." The progressives who have suddenly discovered religion and its necessary role in politics - after thirty decades and more of stridently and rightly insisting it must be kept out of politics - are not sincere. After this temporary rhetorical bubble is over, they will resume their previous, also ad-hoc, declarations.

As for the "sociopath" accusation, this is what comes of copying attack website garbage. The whole thing rests upon one author - Michael Prescott's - highly selective excerpting and chopping up of a private [i.e., thinking out loud without clarifications ] journal written when Rand was barely out of her teens, fresh from the blood bath of 1920s Soviet Russia - and still made it very clear that her read on the personalities of the observers showed that they were not appalled by Hickman's crime - she said there had been far worse, without the same spectacle of glee - but by his flamboyant and mocking defiance of society. She - who was writing about a *legally innocent man* at the time of the trial - even called him a monster, a pervert, a repulsive and purposeless criminal. Enough with the disinformation and - yes - Satanizing of Ayn Rand.

You might read The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker, then reconsider your comments. He quotes one of her former followers, Nora Ephron, who said: "There is no way to communicate how crazy she was....Ultimately everyone who knew her would ask themselves, 'Is she insane or am I?...She was a profoundly manipulative repressed' that it resulted in a 'very complicated paranoia.’"

Or you might try Nathaniel Branden's My years with Ayn Rand: Nathaniel Branden's second wife told him that on first meeting Rand "I felt I was seeing madness there. Enormous anger. Something out of my childhood." Branden says he understood that this was a first impression, but he didn't want to hear anything more like that about her. "The terror at the root of my response was the not-to-be-admitted knowledge that I had seen in Ayn's eyes precisely what Patrecia had seen. To think of Ayn as mad in any respect whatsoever was to plunge my universe into chaos. If there was a steak of irrationality running through Ayn, what did this mean about my entire life? What did this mean about me?" Branden now says, "and yet at some level, I, too, was aware of something wrong in Ayn, an explosive rage that did not fit my more exalted view of her. I wanted to get Ayn out of my question-and-answer periods, for example, because I was appalled by how she sometimes abused our students."

Then, there's Barbara Branden's The passion of Ayn Rand: BB says she and some others were talking the aesthetics of literature. "I was telling Ayn that I deeply loved the novels of Thomas Wolfe, that I had discovered Look Homeward, Angel when I was twelve years old, then devoured all of his work. As I spoke, I dimly observed that Ayn Rand's face was an expressionless mask, and that her eyes, usually so warm when she looked at me, were icy with disapproval. She interrupted only to ask me an occasional question. When I was silent, she reminded me of our fomer discussions of literature. 'Plot, theme, characterization, style—those are the essential ingredients of fiction, are they not?' I nodded. Her voice had become driving and sharp as the ice of her eyes, her words followed each other with machine-gun-like rapidity. With devastating logic, the logic that had drawn and held me to her from the beginning, she demonstrated Wolfe's shortcomings with regard to precisely the elements of fiction I had agreed were essential. She spoke of his indifference to plot; she spoke of his thematic confusions; she spoke of the overwriting that was an omnipresent part of his style. I had no answer; it seemed irrelevant to explain what he meant to me emotionally—that the majestic songs he sang had reached into my deepest being, that I often felt they were me....In the weeks that followed—indeed, the years—I never learned to tear out of myself my passionate response to Thomas Wolfe's novels. Instead, I learned repression, as so many of her young friends were to learn in later years. I learned not to recognize my authentic feelings—not to recognize them nor to experience them nor to know that they remained, never to ackowledge them to myself or others....Ayn had convinced me—as she was to convince me that the paintings of Vincent van Gogh were too undisciplined, too chaotic and wild to be considered great art—as she was to convince me that Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondagepropounded a deeply malevolent view of life—as she was to convince me that Wagner'sTristan and Isolde was profoundly tragic. She convinced me, as, over the years, I would see her convince so many others, of the invalidity of their artistic tastes—the tastes and loves that so often, in fact, represented the best within them."

 Last but  not least, there is writer John Rogers who said: "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted,  socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

In summary: Except to Republicans, Ayn Rand is not an intellectually credible source or model. 

Hsnk Ruark June 22, 2011 8:16 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: If we use body-count as major criterion for competence, then residents of Chicago better start rush for exits ! If we use unidentified headlines for documentation, then we can pick and choose...or even write 'em ourselves, as has been known to happen, to suit the occasion. Easy to cite date, name of paper, where published, simple criteria which allows easy-access check via Internet if indeed it is major daily worth checking... For books, sir, see my listings for proper ID with publisher and date/published, and ISBN. IF you've ever prepared copy for major channel publcation you should surely know the system....which makes one wonder where else you dump your stuff.

Mike June 22, 2011 6:34 pm (Pacific time)

To be fair Dan, the disbursement of taxpayer money has legal guidelines for it's use, and some organizations are "co-mingling" grant funds inappropriately, even illegally as was ordered by congress. By chance have you looked at a number of countries who use abortion for gender purposes? Normally the gender global birthrate is 100 females and 104 males. Some countries have changed that to upwards of 150 male to 100 female. There are unintended consequences coming up fast for these countries, and the world as a whole if this type of gender "culling" spreads. Hank et al, when it comes to liberal Cammanders and those who are conservatives, how's it look for competence? See

below for insight:

"Under Obama, U.S. Casualty Rate in Afghanistan Increased 5-Fold.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011. During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of

President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5

deaths per month.

During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have

suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month." Please note that these average comparisons absolutely

reflect tactics and strategies. What are Obama's rules for keeping those captured in custody? Reports that many in

custody are being released and US troops end up capturing them over and over. The prisoners are released

supposedly because there is insufficent evidence to hold them. Are we in a war or is this a criminal law question

in a US city, not a war zone? Are the troops expected to be FBI agents? What are Obama and Atty. Gen. Herder

doing to our men and women?

You're a conservative ideologue. I don't expect you to be fair. 

Mike June 22, 2011 1:49 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, Hank et al: I'm not a particular religious person, but using your thesis that a religious leader could bring down America just doesn't seem to be possible, but thank you for mentioning the possibility. I guess looking at different european countries in the past, we did have those Dark Ages, and religious doctrine(s) certainly gave flavor to that horrible time. Of course it was the free market system and capitalism that pulled us out of that period. The thing is Daniel, do you find any evidence that in Palin's previous elected positions that she engaged in any type of religious behavior that overtly, even covertly, impacted those she governed? Our U.S. Constitution has a secular guideline, so it's hard for me to imagine that anyone could adversely impact us as you suggest could happen. Though where we do see religious control happening are in countries Like Iran and Saudia Arabia. Then we have those secular totalitarian governments, and it is those that concern me more than any theocracy gaining power here in the states, at least without a big bloody fight going down. Hank you opined about Obama getting re-elected, will never happen: "30% Certain to Support Obama Re-Election...By a margin of 61 percent to 37 percent, a Bloomberg National Poll conducted June 17-20 shows Americans say they believe that Obama will have had his chance to make the economy “substantially better” by the end of 2012. Only 30 percent of respondents said they are certain to vote for the president and 36 percent said they definitely won’t. Among likely independent voters, only 23 percent said they will back his re-election, while 36 percent said they definitely will look for another candidate." "Americans Worse Now Than When Obama Inaugurated by 44%-34% Margin in Poll."

The prediction of a possible theocracy was made by Heinlein, not me. And he was not radical but was rather ultra-conservative.

On the same topic however, the Untied States is the most religious country in the world outside the Islamic nations. What is on the wall behind judges in the courtroom: "In God We Trust". It's on your money, as well. You talk about legislation--how many laws have a religious flavour--not only banning abortion but even going so far as to deny funding for Planned Parenthood who counsel family planning which involves contraception.

Political leaders have to pander to the rabble and it is the rabble who elect the politicians. If you believe otherwise, just open your eyes and understand the nature of your society--religious to its foundation, no matter what the Constitution says. 

Hank Ruark June 22, 2011 11:53 am (Pacific time)

Bill et al: Just in case your conscience sends you to seek truth re Reagan someday, try these three, none of whom can be denigrated as radical/liberal, and all of whom are widely published in national authoritative journals. Between them, if you have do guts enough to seek them out, you may learn some of what dialog can share when not contemptuously thrown aside for ideological nullification of the historical truth --which, we've learned here, is woof/and/web of conservative self-defense. For others they may now serve as the solid documentation desirable in dialog when controversy drives cogitation. Please note all three are comparatively recent and all precede much more-recent continuing spate of magazine articles and reports with much the same message about R/R and his depredations, fully justifying my continued response to what has now become unchallengeable historic record. Here they are: 1. "The Child Monarch", pp,70-92 in POLITICS: Observations and Arguments; Hendrik Hertzberg; Penguin, 2004. ISBN 0-14- 303553 The chapter title tells the whole tale but the pages document in detail the entire R/R Administration with classic confirmation and consensus from nearly every R/R staff member. Hertzberg is long-time New Yorker writer/editor with far too solid a career to suffer from denigration via any unknown here, and the book carries no less than six pages of reviews singing its praise by a distinguished group of well-known and career-established Americans, leading off with Arthur M. Schlesinger. 2. All The President's Spin: George W. Bush, The Media and the Truth; Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer, Brendan Nyhan; Simon and Schuster, 2004. ISBN 0-7432-6251-4. First book from Spinsanity, acclaimed nonpartisan website. Unmasks the tactics of deception, distortion, media manipulation and flat-out lies Bush II has used to sell his deeply damaging agenda to the American people. Contains numerous references to the Reagan Administration and hits minions (Cheney et al) as pattern closely projected still further by Bush II. 3. Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich; Kevin Phillips; Random House, 2002, ISBN 0-7679-0533-4. This is the classic reference used universally in the media for authoritative background and foreground on trends, events --and people-- since the American Revolution. Check the Index for more than ten lines of specific references to the Reagan era and his Administration; it is fair to say that overwhelmingly those entries will support my statements, since the facts-involved come mainly from this reference and then from further support foundf in the most recent massive re-readings of the era which have appeared in so many national authoritative sources. For the record: This additional information is appended here on preceding Comments and responses for the further edification and trustworthy sharing which should and could --and still can !!-- characterize this open, honest, democratic S-N channel, for which we should be grateful to Editors Tim and Bonnie. It deserves its own place in available First Amendment-supported sources and is both justified and damaged by those who try to make of it simply another example of ideological confrontation and conflict.

Hank RUARK June 22, 2011 7:49 am (Pacific time)

Bill: When I was 2, my Dad brought me a book made up to take slide-in pictures. Each two-page/set told a story, which I could change via swapping the images (text, too., large-print, simple sentence, six words.) NOW I know what happened to that book, those images --and that wild-and-radical story-content: "Twas all captured by Palin-tribe leaders and is being foisted furiously on those with 2-year-old mentality, around this nation today. Dunno what the ostensible cost is, Bill --but eventual consequences are obvious. YOU obviously have already bought your own set of images, sir ! I hope they will continue to slip so easily into any open pages left in your psyche where they definitely belong !

Bill June 21, 2011 6:24 pm (Pacific time)

Obviously my points were well made, and the flow of history going back to Woodrow Wilson clearly displayed what happens when liberals/progressives get power over our military, and the resulting violence that happens when incompetents have power. I won't even mention the Concentration Camps FDR put our fellow Americans in. Oops! Daniel you made some good points, but fail to see that all those programs you mentioned were of a bi-partisan effort. Even the Civil Rights legislation was essentially spearheaded by conservatives of both parties. Hank have you done a breakdown on the 2008 election and what groups put Obama over the top defeating a very weak "non-conservative" John McCain? Note: Up until 10/2008 that twit McCain had a 5 point lead, then the bad economic news started getting dialed up in the media. Considering the "broken" promises Obama made (and still does make them nearly 3 years after winning), it will be a major uphill battle for him to get even 42% of the vote. The 2010 elections were the people's answer in regards to Obama's governing performance. We will go through the political motions leading up to the 2012 election, but I am already busy helping plan President Palin's 2016 re-election. Keep in mind that Capitalism follows the rules of human nature, and socialism/communism goes against human nature which is why all such societies require totalitarian governments, secret police, armies of informants and politically correct laws and restrictions on free speech. They all eventually fail, and the free market quickly regains a foothold. Watch Cuba in the next few years, maybe even Zimbabwe. Greece will be undergoing torment for many more years unfortunately, but will provide an excellent example of what happens when the wrong people have power too long.

When I was a teenager I read a novella by Robert A. Heinlein titled If this goes on... in which he described a future America taken over by a theocratic dictatorship. I reread it in the 1980s when Reagan was president and the Moral Majority under Jerry Falwell was exercising considerable political influence. I suspected that Heinlein's prediction for America was imminent, but it was too early. The seeds are now more likely germinating and if some religious Republican with a divine mission from god, like Sarah Palin, were elected president, then the natural end of the evolution of America would be at hand.

Even without that, there is a part of me that hopes someone like Palin is elected in 2012. Religious conservatives will do so much cultural and economic damage to America, that the whole world will sit up and take notice. At the same time, Americans may, I only say may finally learn Lincoln's lesson: A nation divided against itself cannot stand.

I recommend the Heinlein story... 

Hank Ruark June 21, 2011 3:30 pm (Pacific time)

BiLL et al:  I ain't no pundit, Bill...only a reporter. Mine re Reagan reports here on whole pile of national authoritative and recent pieces by those who have made career out of real long-term research, resulting in books and studies and academe-journal articles and more...
     Cpme to for long list of what's on my working table which may surprise the very hell out of you on its completeness and depth and research and bipartisan group of those who have done the real legwork from which I report. At last count there were more than 50 items, including 22 books and about 15 major-magazine (TIME, FORTUNE, Mother Jones, American Prospect, New Republic, others)

     My main interest derives from facts that show his shift from GE plant/visit job to "conservative" was heavily funded by his need for resurrection of failing acting career, with quotes and incidents galore...and from facts of his life showing early/on impacts of A/D  (Example of many: UNrecoognizing son at son's hs graduation !) leading to crucial decisions still hurting nation...which in turn cometh from my six years of main care for wife with fatal Altheimers's, reduced to dementia from doctorate in literature.

     Then there's the "Government IS the Problem !" attitude-stance which misled many Americans including heavy-funding GOPster propaganda/makers, and also drove over/reliance on his pets of privatization, deregulation and (distorted) globalization, which are the economist/consensus contributing and/or main causes of current economic/cycle return to real Depression.

     Please note I confine myself ONLY to Reagan-note from you...all the rest is overrepeated, overwrought conservative cant, proven by silly tie of FDR and others --all Dems of course !-- to wars made by many causes, and unsupported personal/feeling points re size of government and supposed successes, easily nullified by solid historical citations, given time and enough interest...which, for me at 93, after some years of doing so in depth for detail and deeply-documented results, is waste of time for those whose mind is so obviously manipulated by 50 years of ongoing so-called "conservative" in GE's case, with R/R as willing and well/paid participant, making name for self-survival.
     My sympathies lie with his family, whose sufferings and continued publications stating some-of-above are part of record, which you can find if you care enough to look instead of cavil and cavort over such telltale wording as you wrote here: "...default boogyman for all that is wrong with the world."
     After some 650 professional Op Eds in this channel, readers either know me better or they  do not...and it is far too late to change that record, now.  By the way, what have you ever contributed before this personal attack ??   Proven by your opening phrase, which can mean only that since it is obviously so-designed... 

Hank Ruark June 21, 2011 4:16 pm (Pacific time)

Bill et al:
Your questions, sir, proved so provocative that I find I must respond to each point to make certain factual and undistorted --and highly documentable-- information from reliable national sources is laid out on the record here for further examination by all concerned.
1. Re Reagan, already accomplished; added point: Full documentation waits your personal/professsional courtesy in coming direct to my emailer at, which avoids undue added pressure on time, space, cost and reader patience in S-N. Your failure so to do proves up purpose of your piece.
2, "Conservative" Reagan also created larger deficit than all other presidents before him, and had to raise taxes within a year of his help-the-rich slashes which created that deficit...with job count much in question by latest research and comparison of policies for the very administrations you cite.
3. Then there's Iran/Contra, Col. North, and billions illegally utilized for arms (and originally passed through Israel !) never properly accounted for as Presidential action, with Commission clearly concerned re raising Altheimer's issue, and seeking UN-political avoidance of painful issue none had guts enough to face through to impeachment...
Was that a "disasterous policy", sir ? Many historians believe the non-action in face of that "disasterous" foreign policy major gaffe set stage for much of the tragedy now engulfing the Mid and Far East, and led to the Bush-return to war with Iraq by choice, and was also root of Afghanistan conflict, tied to inevitable Soviet action reflecting from Reagan poliices (always in shadow of what we now know re A/D.)
4. So, YES, let's "sift, cogitate, correlate, has the public benefited more from conservative or liberal policies?" as you wrote. Any rational, reasonable informed persons will find it easy to make a sensible, sensitive decision...
5. Yours/next avoids the inevitable necessity to view facts as they are and not be side-tracked by awkward reference to desirable action to which nobody will voice objection --while tying/same directly to your (also awkward) statement of unproven and highly doubtful political ideology. Nice try but falls flat on face from its own fallaciousness.
You wrote: "...policies that best serve everyone, while not diminishing individual rights that a big/growing government does, and the evidence for that is beyond resonable doubt." (reasonable ?)
Millions disagree with "best serve everyone" --which is why Obama won and will win-again.
Big government, without a doubt, is our only real and Constitutionally-armed defense vs the withering attack on civil rights and others for each individual in this nation now, as it has been ever since the Civil War; and here the evidence is truly beyond the reasonable doubt involved. Your statement, sir, simple sets the historical record on its head --well/known "conservative" tactic in any debate, and surely out of place in open, honest, democratic dialog as intended in S-N's channel.
6. Your final statement is simply more conservative cant, with numerous and massive polling results available as proof-overr-the-years, when conservative-cant distortion is removed and professionals provide tested-and-proven questions from a truly bi- or non-partisan vocabulary well understood by canny Americans...whose with, wisdom and will hath prevailed for over 250 American years and will so continue, you can be sure...

You might want to try another brand of whatever it is you've been using, sir !

AND don't hesitate to come direct to my emailer....I enjoy dialog with you.

Bill June 21, 2011 7:34 am (Pacific time)

Hank using President Ronald Reagan as your default boogyman for all that is wrong with the world is pretty lame don't you think? Since I believe I know your response, then those 20 million plus jobs that were created under the economic policies conservative Reagan put through a liberal congress, how do you think that compares with defacto "liberals/progressives" like Wilson(WWI), FDR(WWII), Truman (Korean War), LBJ (Vietnam War), Carter (10.8% unemployment/22% prime rate), and Obama (In #4 wars, and economic disasterous policies)? So all in all when you sift, cogitate, correlate, has the public benefited more from conservative or liberal policies? We are all Americans, and we all inhabit the same planet, I hardly think now is the time to point fingers, but to use our collective brainpower and come up with policies that best serve everyone, while not diminishing individual rights that a big/growing government does, and the evidence for that is beyond resonable doubt. Have you seen how Americans view themselves: Liberals, conservatives, other? The liberal ID is waning very quickly, and a name change for them does not alter that decline, for their game plan is rejected by more and more people each day.

 You're right, Bill. Nothing good has ever come from liberal policies. Obama can probably be persuaded to eliminate social security and unemployment insurance. And get rid of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Let employers make people work as many hours as they want and reduce wages as far they can. In fact, how many billions can be saved by giving the economy real freedom by eliminating as much regulation as possible. Why should makers of consumer products have to let the public know that there might be carcinogenic or toxic ingredients in their products?

America is a country of individuals and it's every man for himself. That will put the liberals in their place. 

Hank Ruark June 20, 2011 7:40 pm (Pacific time)

Mike et al You-all might find it both intriguing and valuable to check out much earlier authoritative information than the Great Society era and the 60 years of impressive prosperity even earlier-on, woefully dissipated with the Reagan era arrival. For surprising similarity with the current decade and conglomeration of economic, cultural and political problems, see such classics as The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society; Peter F. Drucker; Harper and Row, 1968. LC Card 68-28292. Note: This one is so early it precedes ISBN-system ! Drucker is the famed management/methods guru, noted for his radical and prescient future/forecasting, for which this one excels...see Chapter10: The Sickness of Government. Might be the striking fact of close similarities to our current situation and the consequences of all-between now-and-then may give you-all some further guidance towards pragmatic and practical actions now.

Mike June 20, 2011 7:33 pm (Pacific time)

Hank is this what happened to the democratic state senators from Wisconsin last March? Your below quote:"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Winston Churchill// Regarding President Reagan, I'll continue to side with the vast super majority of Americans. History has verified that correct position. And yes I read Dutch, a quasi-biography that bonafide academics and professional historians use as birdcage paper,fish wrap, fire starter, mulch, you get the idea?

 Let's not lose sight of the fact, Mike, that a supermajority of people also used to believe the earth was flat. Wait, 20% of adult Americans today believe that the sun goes around the earth.

Mike June 20, 2011 7:25 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel the number one person who received political donations from the Wall Street/Bankers was Obama, and out of the top ten, 8 were democrats (see 2008 FEC reports, and prior ones also). In regards to the sub-prime loan fiasco that burst the housing bubble, the top people in Fannie Mae and Freddy were all democrats. Obama's former chief of staff, Rahmm Emanuel was there, and Clinton had a boatlad of people, including Jamie Gorelick who cut off intelligence sharing between our various intelligence organizations when she was number #2 at the Attorney Generals office. This happened about a year before the 9/11 attack when the enemy was here training how to fly, not land (see 9/11 report for dates). She was also on the 911 Commission investigating herself. She made millions, as did Franklin Raines who made over $60 million during the subprime scam. Then we have Barney Frank who repeatedly claimed how solevant the sub-prime loans were. His live-in boyfriend worked for Fannie. Remember his other boyfriend who ran a homosexual prostitution call service out of Barney's DC digs? I could go on and on, but I don't think it would make any difference to you Daniel , but the simple truth (verifiable) is that the radical left has caused the current financial situation.Just look at their spending which outstrips all revenue that lower taxes kicked up! Even now academics have shown how FDR's policies prolonged the depression. Obama is going down the same path, but intentionally. You may have some very wealthy Americans moving up to the Calgary area before long buying up everything, then what are you gonna do? We conservatives are not your enemy Mr. Johnson, so take a breath and think about how things really are and how they developed, not how you think things went to pad your calculated fantasy.

In case you hadn't noticed, I was writing about liberals, not Democrats. There is a difference. 

HanK RUARK June 20, 2011 5:06 pm (Pacific time)

Mike: Yrs is classic cant as long ago carefully constructed by right-wingers desperately seeking some way to fly...and finding only that thin/air and irrational if resounding remarks will never get off ground for ordinary folk seeking mainly survival. Worst collapse since Vesuvious blew its top was "supply side", basis for R/R/ slashed taxes which he was forced to adjust UPwards within ayear...and see Stockman book re R/R "Revolution" for revolting resolution of any questions about that deal. I.e., sir "you lie in your teeth" whether knowingly or ID-self via any special right to speak OR provide some authoritative and more accurate facts from those who do know, if you have any... For solid documentation, line by line review of yours, and other true factual delicacies drawn from national and indisputable sources, seek out my emailer from Editor Tim and we can then properly GET IT ON absent the enervating limitations imposed by space here. Best to you and be sure to save your dollars since your principles as shown here should prevent you from ever taking SSecurity from liberal power that made it possible...

Hank Ruark June 20, 2011 2:16 pm (Pacific time)

To all: Perhaps this one, too, might help here and now: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

Hank Ruark June 20, 2011 2:13 pm (Pacific time)

I regret not being on-site to observe that elephant when he feels those strong tugs on his....tail !!

hank Ruark June 20, 2011 2:11 pm (Pacific time)

To all: SO here's two solidly authoritative references to support what I just wrote about "liberal" as political descriptor being smeared, seduced, distorted and demeaned. 1. Re Reagan's fall from grace as strong Democratic union/leader to become the foremost small-govt./tax-slash advocate, see SHADOW: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate; Bob Woodward;Simon and Schuster,1999: ISBN 0-684-85262-4. "Part Three, Ronald Reagan" is more than 100 pp. of solid, sensitive and securely proven observation and memory of persons working closely with R/R from 1981 till 1989, full of incident and example of his reversal, stemming from his fortunate and lucrative employment, with movie-career deteriorating, as GE spokesman and plant visitor. These pages reflect the years of his Presidency and display the early impacts of what later became full-fledged Altheimer's affliction --surely shadowing those years and the issues, problems, answers-and-actions taken then. The book is a recognized historical classic now, known to be meticulously prepared and authentically documented by the famous author of Watergate/story-breaking investigative news reporting, What he writes may well be more meaningful than bloviation belaboring bloviation on a key period in the ongoing "conservative" class war causing the partial demise of the true meaning of "liberal" in political context. 2. Re the "conservative" class war itself, carried on via propagandizing the once-fairer American political dialog, see BIG LIE: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth; Joe Conason; Thomas Dunne/St. Martin, 2003. ISBN 0-312-31560-0 , Surely David Brock, himself a resurrected "conservative" must count as reviewer: "Every page of BIG LIE is a revelation. With incisiveness and verve, Joe Conason supplies the intellectual ammunition to rescue liberalism and liberals from years of Republican distortion, spin and shameless lies. Along the way, Conason delivers one of the most devastating indictments of right-wing rhetorical tricks and dishonest media techniques in print. Have fun while you read !! AND save the wild-wind wailings until you HAVE done so, making sure to give honest, correct name when you offer any further Comment here --perfect signal you appreciate, honor, respect, and wish to strengthen and extend open, honest, democratic dialog --long the heart of realistic democracy, starting long before The Federalist Papers were conceived, consolidated and carried into many pre-Revolutionary homes via print and honorable local dialog.

Mike June 20, 2011 2:04 pm (Pacific time)

Look what has happened since the Great Society from the 60's: Poverty is up, crime is far worse, out of wedlock births up, illiteracy up, minority family
units have been deteriorating, Illegal migration is quickly depleting resources we need for our own citizens, and now we see western countries like Greece,
Italy and Spain who adopted "progressive policies" years ago, falling apart. The hypocrisy of the limousine liberals out there has been one of the causes for
the unraveling of the radical leftists. In other words the out and out greed by the left has been their own undoing. We live in a time with a mass media
that let's people see in real time what's going on, and only the lazy and truly "selfish" want to live off the scraps an out of control government doles out.
By the way only about 50% of Americans actually pay "income" taxes, and the leftists know that, so they are using that situation to attempt to dissolve the
electoral college on several different fronts, state and federal, even via activist judges, and they really can begin a totalitarian socialistic government
if this voting method is eliminated. They have failed thus far, now it's time to engage a lawful process that will bring about their complete and total
demise. The latter, a job begun by President Reagan, but George I and George II dropped the ball. In 2013 we start fresh to save America (maybe even before
if we can get some large budget cuts passed), we will free the people to do what the Founder's intended for "all" of us to do. Canada is well on their way at
this time, they are waking up, as the past few national votes demonstrate so very clearly. To offer another insight between a conservative and a liberal. A
Conservative is what the person is, a principled position that is static, never changing. A liberal is a calculated position, one who constantly adapts to
whatever gets their agenda (which frequently changes) through. Disgraced Rep. Weiner is your classic liberal, truth is only used when it must. The liberal
always uses distractions and will accuse others for what they are doing.  

" the out and out greed by the left has been their own undoing". I'm surprised you missed holding the left responsible for  the Wall Street/Housing disaster.

Your differentiation between liberals and conservatives is, indeed, insightful. Liberals are calculating, i.e., they are doing whatever they can to help make the world a better place; conservatives, are "static" sitting there with their thumbs up their a... 


Hank Ruark June 20, 2011 12:36 pm (Pacific time)

To all, esp. anons: Anyone signing anon or similar in a public channel flings contempt in the face of all who sign responsibly. No comment should be free from check by all readers, and ID should be forthcoming in detail on request. Without that saving/grace, a huge proportion of dialog here becomes only more wild/wind blowing in the desert of strongly-distorted and far too often misinterpreted and/or misunderstood failings of too-simple statement. Longtime propaganda study (since before 1918 !) proves up this point. First rule of any communication is to know the source; without that basic information, any dialog must rest on the impressions gained ONLY from the content, which in short-mode forced here is to hang your understandings on what the blind man felt when he explored the elephant...and perhaps misread that feel !! Some may find that enjoyable, but rational, reasonable readers will soon turn elsewhere for anything in any way worth cogitation and useful for real decision. It is historical communications fact that right-winger propaganda groups set out to disembowel "liberal" and other meaningful terms more than 50 years ago and have succeeded notoriously because of heavy funding and widespread overwhelming repetition via Right-owned talk/radio and other channels. That was one overriding reason Reagan began his political career by choosing to state his notorious "Government IS the Problem !" thesis, for which we now have to thank him also for privatization, deregulation, and distorted first-steps in the inevitable process of globalization.

Anonymous June 20, 2011 6:57 am (Pacific time)

Spartacus again. Regardless of how one wants to define the meanings of words such as conservative, liberal, progressive, or any other word, it is actions/behaviors that ultimately shape the meaning of these words. Those on the left feel that government should play the major role in constructing individual behavior, while those "others" know it is the individual who should always be the primary decision-maker in regards to how they will live their lives. Of course both groups understand the importance of people coming together to form communities for their mutual self-interests, generally for protection purposes from invaders, or assuring domestic safety from various harmful concerns. The thing is that the radicals insist on using OPM (other people's money) in a constantly growing percentage. OPM eventually runs out, as does the incentive of individuals to go out and create wealth, and the latter is something the government does not do, no matter how one tries to spin it, nor is it governments role. Government in the American "republican format" is 100% answerable to the will of the people. This is not happening, thus the people are rising up. The Tea Party is just a tiny part of this growing reaction to our government's poor performance. The last couple of elections are pretty clear that the majority wants a return to how the U.S. Constitution is meant to operate for "We the People." The radicals have smelled blood in the water, but it is their blood, and all the glib rhetoric or prose coming from the politicians, the media, will not alter the coming change to conservative values taking over government policies. People will not be hurt because of this, just the opposite, for it is the conservatives, a conglomeration of individuals seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that wants to see all people to be able to do the same. Hand up, not hand out is what helps people in need.

Julie June 20, 2011 6:30 am (Pacific time)

Great bumper sticker seen this weekend "I voted for Obama in 2008 to prove I'm not a racist. In 2012 I will vote for someone else to prove I'm not a retard.'

Richard Aubrey June 20, 2011 5:50 am (Pacific time)

Going to a dictionary is an old trick, meaningless in this context. Unless the writer can point out liberals being liberal in the dictionary sense. Since that would be impossible--except in the liberals' advertising pamphlets (metaphor alert), there is no reason to connect the two.
"progressive", "leftist", "generous with other people's money, "extraordinarily stuck on their own self-image", "concerned with intentions, especially as they can make the case they're superior to the rest of us, consequences of the actions be damned or blamed on somebody else".
Stuff like that.

Editor: There we go letting those 'official definitions' and annoying 'truths' and 'facts' enter the picture again... What were you thinking Daniel! (LOL) 

grundoon June 20, 2011 12:32 am (Pacific time)

Dan, I would like to refer you to "Who Really Cares" or "The Truth Behind Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur Brooks. Dr. Brooks' extensive research at Syracuse University School of Public Administration proves rather conclusively that secular progresive "liberals" are stingy and selfish and give, charitably about one quarter as much of their money and time as Christian conservatives. It's a good, fast, eye-opening read. You need to read it.

A fundamental purpose of government, in my opinion, is to do things that individuals cannot do for themselves, such as taking care of catastrophic health care. My understanding is that "compassionate conservatives" (an oxymoron) have never been supporters of universal health care. 

Sledge June 19, 2011 9:13 pm (Pacific time)

You blame conservatives, who as your own words say dont want to change things (like the meanings of words) for your socialist buddies hijacking the word "Liberal" and changing its meaning? Typical and really not quite so.... Liberal?

Liberals have not changed the meaning of the word. In their view a liberal is defined today, the same way it was in 1962. I had until recently a dictionary from 1933. I'll wager the definition would have been about the same then.There are no coincidences but I just read an interview with Paul Krugman which was published today, after my piece ran (at least I hadn't read it until about 15 minutes ago). You can read "Paul Krugman on Inspiration for a Liberal Economist" at 

jrobinson June 19, 2011 8:38 pm (Pacific time)

If you're really interested in an answer, here it is... Liberal never used to be a dirty word. Then, Progressives came to power in the early 1900s and so tarnished the word "Progressive", that they began to use the word "liberal" instead. But since they were still "Progressive", they eventually tarnished that word, too. So, now they're Progressive again... because the smell of that word has since faded. This is why I prefer the term, "Leftist" - because it covers all the various disguises you take on: Liberal, Progressive, Communist, Socialist, Statist, Collectivist. Ayn Rand was correct in that terms such as "selfishness" have been unfairly cast as negative... but what you're missing - and why it seems incomprehensible to you - is that it was Leftists who have been purposefully mis-defining it. For instance, the last thing a Leftist wants to hear is someone who stands for individual rights and liberty; it stands in the way of their collective statist wet dreams... so they seek to define anyone who advocates their own interests as "selfish". All these word games, and all these maligned definitions, and all this misunderstanding is due to Leftists trying to 1) disguise who they are and 2) define their opponents as something they aren't. That's why any word a Leftist uses to define themselves, eventually becomes a dirty one - because it's Leftism. And Leftism is so antithetical to the entire Amercian experience, they cannot dare operate in the open. Whenever they do, they get rejected. Rand was simply saying that advocating for one's own self is not a bad thing, and that we should immediately be suspicious of people that try to make us sacrifice parts of ourselves for their "grand schemes", and try to make us feel bad for believing in ourselves and not them.

Anonymous June 19, 2011 6:59 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel I am also "Spartacus!" It seems to me that you are really frustrated with the political changes going on in Canada (and elsewhere) and feel the need to stike out, correct? To start using definitions of Liberal and Conservative takes me back to the 1960's while taking an undergraduate English Composition course. The professor gave a pop quiz and asked us to define Liberal, conservative and "bleeding heart." I had just recently returned to the states after being hospitalized for several months for some minor wounds during Tet 1968. My english professor was not very fond of the definitions I gave him and red inked my test paper. About one week later this far left liberal professor was stranded on the freeway in a rainstorm when this meanie conservative stopped and gave him a lift to get a tow truck. At this time we chatted and he found out more about me, and that I had already finished an undergraduate degree years earlier before going into the military and I took his course to get back into a writing/critical thinking mode for graduate school. As we got to know each other over the years this liberal professor ended up running for the school board and eventually the state a conservative Republican. He never lost an election, and a grade school in my town is named after him. In fact what was often constued as a liberal years ago was often someone with conservative values. The far left radicals have literally hijacked the Liberal term and democratic party, and because of the bad vibes coming with that word, are often found using the word "progressive," which just means quite simply that the masses are too stupid and need guidance from the radicals who know what they need. The time for libs/progressives is drawing to a close Daniel, and in time you will understand that this is really magnificent progress for the human condition. I provide that info on that changing situation to all, quite liberally, I might add, but in a conservative context.

Anonymous001 June 19, 2011 6:47 pm (Pacific time)

I actually meant to write Loathsome. Not Loathesome. My error.

Anonymous001 June 19, 2011 6:45 pm (Pacific time)

Dan, I was not writing to you. I was appealing to the readers and to Tim and Bonnie. You feel free to say disparaging things. Your opinion means nothing to me. I respect what America stands for. I also like Canada. There is enough dislike already in this world; I am not going to waste my time or effort even worrying about a loathesome writer who doesn't have anything worthwhile to say about anything I care about.

Anonymous001 June 19, 2011 6:32 pm (Pacific time)

I am the first Anonymous poster (3:59) I am not against the site. In fact I have a lot of respect for the hard work Tim and Bonnie et al have endured. There is nothing but respect for them. I think other than Hank's constant desire that people do not post anonymously. Dan just seems to hate America and writes so many articles to an American audience that I am astounded that he would still be with the site. It is not my decision, so I wish the best of luck. I will still be forwarding news information as I always have. I almost offered up some services this week to help out, but I did not for a couple of reasons, one of them being a desire to not ever have to work or deal with Dan. Regardless, I wish you would pare the writers. You have some world-class people. You also have some weak writers who really have nothing to offer, in my opinion.

I write on an American website, so naturally my articles are aimed at Americans.

If you don't think I should be published here, write to Tim directly and make your case. Good luck.

The same applies to you, Stephen. 

Anonymous June 19, 2011 5:25 pm (Pacific time)

And asked me to put up or shut up..I put up long ago, but you ignored. Why should I spend countless hours trying to re-write what has already been done? I have kids man! I told you to watch Alex Jones documentaries...obama deception, endgame etc. ALL FREE!!! you didnt. So why should I write anything when Alex's documentaries explain it all. ???? Wake the fuandck up! And Bonnie? Kinda nice that the economy is so bad, you can pick up riff raff for free now huh? I totally expect to be censored...But thats ok. After looking at web traffic, salem-news is nothing. Just had to get this off my chest.

Anonymous June 19, 2011 5:18 pm (Pacific time)

I am not the previous anon..but I agree with the previous anon. I asked TIm to research Daniels resume, obviously Tim did not. It seems Tim and Bonnie are more concerned about having many writers that suck instead of being careful and having a few good writers. .. and if you go to and find web traffic, you will see that salem-news does not even beat statesmjournal. A local news website. You can also type in "" to see traffic. It is encouraging to me. I am surprised the other anon did not get censored, or edited like I did. As mentioned, research daniels background..There is none. He cant find a job, and doesnt want to work, he lives off the state (and wants us all patriots to do the same) and provided nothing but false rhetoric. I suggest listening to Alex Jones, who actually has a track record for over 15 years of being correct. He even predicted 911, 6 weeks before it happened. WHile daniel was sucking his thumb. His last comment to me was "dont bother posting, I will just delete it" That in itself says a million words.

Anonymous June 19, 2011 3:59 pm (Pacific time)

I guess I will have to find my news elsewhere. Any blog site that would call Dan an Associate Editor is not a site I will visit any longer. Dan hates America and what America stands for.
 Sorry, Tim.

[Return to Top]
©2019 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

Articles for June 18, 2011 | Articles for June 19, 2011 | Articles for June 20, 2011
Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.

Your customers are looking: Advertise on!

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin