Replies

It was years after high school, that it began to sink in with me, the problem of ...

First, you get an idea.

Next, you try to write it down.

What you wrote, should be, on that paper, what you "said" in your mind.

Then, you go back and read it.

What you were thinking may be there, or it may not be there.

Even when it is there, for you, it may not be there for the person reading your words --- they will see only portions of your thoughts.

If you know what I am saying ... (he said?!) ... then you will understand me, when I say, now, that I wish teachers had said the above to me, when I was in school, struggling so hard to write anything, inhibited by my inhibitions, basically very shy, and a man of very, very few words.

No teacher, until I was 23 years old, every spent the time to help me learn to craft anything that I was writing.

I knew grammer, 100%. I knew spelling, 100%.

I did not know anything at all, about the writing that teachers were expecting to see, based upon what they pretended to teach ... and most of that, is probably because most of them were trying to indoctrinate me with socialist C.R.A.P. Our writing was judged according to how politically correct were our ideas, and that was in the late 1960's.

No one said to me, "This is a sheet of metal, and you are going to shape it into an object that has meaning; and, you are going to describe for me, each step and detail to accomplish that. You are to organize all that in steps, that is, paragraphs. Thus, by the end, your theme will be, how to produce an object, and you will have demonstrated how to do that, to everybody who reads your document, now, and in the future."

Probably they did not do that, because my instructors were bullshit artists whose only fashioning was that they fashioned themselves.

We were constantly reminded, that, what we did not know, we should have learned in the previous grades.

So, what was the purpose in being there? I might have asked, but I could not find the words, because I would be challenging the teacher, that is, disrespectful, and I think they knew that and took advantage of it. In addition to which, now, I will also say, that their philosophy obviously set aside the fact that they were not there to teach us how to write. Instead, they were there for, as I began to realize, to indoctrinate us in their philosophy on life as it should be under their favorite flavor of socialism.

If you wanted to get an A, you did as Mike Kinsley did: You wrote voluminously, regurgitating the left wing buzzwords that the teacher spoke in class; and the teacher apparently went for it. Not becaue the teacher was hooked on what you said, but because the teacher cooed over your recruitment in "the long march."

I did not catch onto that trick until 7 or 8 years later, in some history and economics courses in college, in which I would toss a few buzzwords into a paper, here and there ... and yes, it did seem to work quite well.

Mike Kinsey figured out early on, and he made a profession of, "Give 'em what they want, and they'll make you a star."

The academic competition in prep schools, if you wanted to go to the Ivy League, was mostly in that direction.

If you were willing to be "pragmatic" about that profession, you would find the attention that you craved, and he did.

In contrast, my being a guy of few words, I assessed the situation as, "They are trying to make bullshit artists out of us."

You were "in" if you were witty, and you were otherwise "out" and usually suspected of being "conservative."

I was "too uptight," which I knew to be, that I was raised to a standard of self-discipline.

I don't know how else to say it, that I felt that they were trying to get me to say things that I did not believe, that I did not think were true, and even things that I believed were harmful.

I think that an effort must be made, when raising a child to be self-disciplined, to be alert to, given the child, overcoming the tendency to, by that raising, effectly make the child tight-lipped in areas where, in the child's future, especially with their children, they might do a bit better to open up within the family unit, while maintaining their privacy in public.

The "liberal minded" folk tend to think of tight-lipped people as simple minded people, completely overlooking the above, and that, the fellow may be a man of action, and they have underestimated him, almost altogether. They sure did underestimate Ronald Reagan, and they still do underestimate him.

The liberals like to say, that "clearly" (the lead-in buzzword that let's you know that first, it is not "clear," and second, not well thought out by the same liberals) ... "clearly this man is not deep and therefore he must be saying what he is told to say and think."

They are "enlightened;" you are not.

I found then, and since, that "intellectuals" cannot bear applied science, because something other than what is in a favorite book of theirs, will expose them to laws that require in-depth understanding of what they do not know --- usually introducing facts, not entered by man by by God, that refute the same liberals' propaganda.

In addition, they generally do not go to the library and look up anything related to naval shipping and operations, because that would prevent he or she or it, the network liberal media news intellectual, from asking their question in the fashion that they have worked so hard to use in the public eye (and satisfy Marx et al at alma mater), so that it sets a stage by which they can damage the integrity of the man in uniform, whom they are working so hard to embarrass in public.

If you, John, are at the podium, and I ask you a dumb question, I know, as a professional network news reporter, that the probability is, given that you are an honest soul, what happens in your mind, is for a moment, the thought, "How do I explain in brief, the steps that I must, in order to answer that question well enough, so that the public understands how and why, the thinking that is the context necessary, so I answer the public's question."

That takes a lot of training and self-discipline, to make an argument briefly, that almost always requires some education that you know you must convey, yet you know that your inquisitor is not going to let you explain. In a time when also, conservative politics media wonks (advisors) are consuming your money in the name of making you a Sound Bite Star --- for one hop instead of your learning to become a pilot and a pilot instructor.

The professional news reporter knows that they have tripped an overload switch, and they desire to make you fumble with some few words that, in your mind you may think you've got it, the idea, and the expression, but it usually cannot be enough to be ... which is my point here ... understood by the public.

All liberal media personnel are propagandists, that is, they work diligently to convey ideas that use the Marxist-Goebbels-Gramsci Thesarus --- the holy words --- the buzzwords.

Most of those words, if not all, are adjectives.

One way to defeat the left wing nuts' arguments, is to find the adjectives, and start in on them.

That was one of Reagan's tools. He would say something like, "You are trying to convey that I do not care that it is a 'day,' because I do not agree with you that it is a 'bad day,' when, in fact, I firmly believe that it is a 'day,' and contrary to your position, I am determined to make it a 'good day.'"

That pretty much sums up Ronald Reagan's political views and then some.

The left wing nuts are about making the people fear that it will be a bad day, while Ronald Reagan believed that we have the capacity, and it is worthy of ourselves, and it is in our American Heritage to work at making it a good day.

That is the American way of life.