“America today reminds me of Weimar Germany. . .”

---  Linda Ronstadt

“That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.  There is just no comparison between Weimar Germany and today in America.  I have studied history.  I taught History.   I know what I am talking about. That is just ridiculous.”

---  Bill O’Reilly,  (before the fall.  (Mr. Rath was a schoolmaster too.)

Note:  The theme of the Last Letter is not that Weimar is important because America is about to fall victim of the NAZIs, but rather because the Weimar Republic, as U. S. Senator Moynihan noted at the time was, “a struggling young democracy.”  Weimar did not have to, was not predestined to, lead to catastrophe, just as we have said about our own time, see Max Weber Institute. 

Lecture Notes:  10-29-04      

But your fees are not included in the tuition.

Counselor:  No, of course not.

Well I just wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding ---

Counselor:  . . . You are on.

Yes!   Welcome back to New Ruskin.  Welcome. . . . uh, let’s clarify a few points.  Some College visitors have asked if we meant to imply that Mr. Jones the putative Republican candidate for U. S. Senate had thrown the election in order to secure the continued support of Marin Senators Boxer and Feinstein for his state mandated “ethanol?”

No certainly not.  We did not mean to imply that.  We meant to categorically affirm it. 

Earlier in the campaign Mr. Jones made a point of letting everyone know that he had funded his campaign with $2 million of his own money.  (He is said to be worth $14 million.)  Recently he let it be known that, due to business difficulties, he is illiquid and not able to fulfill his promises to make available to his campaign the financial resources  which he had previously represented to the Republican Party of California would be spent on advertising. In other words he reneged on the promise to fund the campaign.

Let me be clear.  If I had $2 million I would not spend it on a campaign for Senate, so I do not condemn  Mr. Jones for prudence.  I condemn him for being a liar.

Mr. Jones represented to the Party that he would use some of his own money.  He made a promise and now says he will not keep the promise.  There are others who would have been willing to fund their own campaigns had Mr. Jones not made his misrepresentations.  Mrs. Jack Swanson has reported (on KSFO AM)  that Mr. Jones has collected back from the contributions made to his campaign, by others, the $2 million he had previously “given.”  He lied even about the original funding of the campaign.

I submit for your consideration that Mr. Jones knew from the beginning that it would be better for his “ethanol” plant to have the Marin Senator Boxer returned to office;  that he deliberately failed to campaign, failing even to use the free media;  ignoring issues, ignoring opportunities, deliberately sabotaging the Republican Party;  all in furtherance of a collusive agreement with the Democrats to fix the Federal election for Boxer;  and all of this in return for the continued support of the Democrats for Mr. Jones’ “ethanol” plant.

Our Governor has again said that another candidate for public office, Poizner, (who is spending $8 million for a State Assembly seat), is so rich that “he can not be bought.”  It will be recalled that the Governor had previously said the same thing about himself.  Further recall that, at the time,  we reminded the College visitor of G. K. Chesterton’s point that, “A politician who claims that he is too rich to be bought is a fool, for he fails to perceive that he has already been bought.”

Let us offer the Governor, Mr. Jones as an example of just such a rich man as G. K. Chesterton describes.  The problem with the Governor’s thesis is that it assumes that a man who has $14 millions is “above” mortal cares.  For one thing Mr. Jones, like so many others, having arrived at $14 millions now wants $15 or $20 millions.  Then too there is “insurance.”  With so much of his capital sunk in the “ethanol” plant,  (he did say he was illiquid), Mr. Jones far from being care free has a great many cares, a lot of them tied up, along with his millions, in his “ethanol” plant, which depends on state mandates as no consumer will voluntarily pay for the product of Mr. Jones’ plant.

Unfortunately I doubt that even this scandal of a deliberately thrown election will cause the Governor to reconsider his position about the superior virtue and trustworthiness of the rich.  As we have said so many times before, the rich are no friends of free markets.  They in general prefer to use the power of the state to fix and pervert the market.  Mr. Jones for example. 

As we have explained, (see The Magnificent Five in the  E-Mail Archives at the Moynihan), the $7.4 trillion in national debt is especially favored by the rich because this allows them to completely withdraw from the vicissitudes of the market.  No late nights studying what the consumers want, or how to meet those demands, etc.  When your capital is in Treasury Bonds all you need do is clip coupons and let the I.R.S. shake the money out of the people.   Even though the Governor is from Austria I have never heard him mention the Austrian School of Economics.  In any case the Governor does not impress me as a man given to long reflection and deep introspection.

The other point that needs clarification is the issue of Mr. O’Reilly’s news judgment.  Some College visitors have suggested that he may simply have considered the story presented here at this website and deemed it not newsworthy.

Possibly so.  Two networks, one intentionally interfering with a private contractual relation, the other burglarizing a notebook.  Both involved in years of harassment, over a decade, interfering with employment with one employer after another, electronic eaves dropping, on and on it goes, ending in suicide ---- well, ok so maybe it isn’t news.

But now look at what has happened.  I claimed that my troubles started when I wrote some letters to the Senate.  I claim that because I expressed conservative Republican views I became a target here in the ultra liberal Bay Area of San Francisco.

Now, Bill O’Reilly claims that he has been targeted in an extortion attempt, by politically motivated Democrat partisans who are taking advantage of some risqué after hours talk between collaborating adults.

Just on the correspondence of the two stories, wouldn’t you think that just these similarities would prompt interest?

One guest on the O’Reilly radio show complemented him on his great insight in recognizing the importance of the Swift Boat Vets story, “from the start.”  O’Reilly accepted the complement.

Yet anyone familiar with the facts knows that O’Reilly repeatedly accused the Vets of a political “smear.”  That he compared them to Michael Moore.  That he famously concluded the Friday broadcast by informing his radio audience that the Vet’s story was a one week event and that they will not be heard from again. 

The following week he announced that he was excited to have gotten an interview with John O’Neil for his TV show the following week, i.e. two weeks after O’Reilly had announced that the story would have been over.

I had said at the time, (see Lecture Notes), that O’Reilly took the side of the elite, in this case Kerry, over the merely middle class Vets.  Subsequent events suggest another reason O’Reilly may have decried the “smear” and “lies,” etc. etc.  At one point he even propounded the theory that the Swift Boat Vets were not “primary sources” because they were not actually on Kerry’s boat. 

They were not “primary sources” because they were not flying away down river with Kerry.  They were only fishing the wounded out of the water, trying to save the damaged boat, providing first aid, etc. etc.  The absurdity of this argument is self evident.

What may not be so clear is why O’Reilly repeatedly makes these “mistakes” in judgment.  His first consideration is his own ego:  what is best for O’Reilly?  Some times he guesses wrong.  For example he not only did not investigate the charges made here about Weiner he positively endorsed him, even doing promotional spots for Weiner’s show.  He seems enamored of Imus too.  He even used Bo Dietl, Imus’ friend, in his own case, where clearly Dietl has seriously done damage.  

O’Reilly has tried to befriend the very people who now abuse him, Imus, Weiner, and Dietl, who, as I say, has actually done immeasurable harm to him.  Imus even went on the air, (when O’Reilly tried to get air time after the filings in court), abusing O’Reilly publicly and ridiculing him.

So, O’Reilly, not only did not take up the story presented here about Imus and Weiner, but O’Reilly tried to befriend both of these cowardly bastards, and both have betrayed him.  All his efforts backfired.  But the problem starts with the fact that he does not start his analysis by trying to find out what is true, he starts his analysis by thinking what is best for O’Reilly. 

Had he started with the truth, he would now have a huge story about how two powerful networks, ABC and NPR, set out to destroy a man; how Don Imus and Michael Weiner for years have burglarized, harassed, and oppressed, this man, etc. etc.

Instead we have a story about how he has harassed, etc. 

So Governor, now what?  Jones, O’Reilly, Imus, Weiner, Dietl, all rich men.  Millionaires several times over.  And yet you still propound the argument that “rich men can not be bought?”  Sir?  Sir?  Is this what you are continuing to argue?

Sir?  If you do not answer I will kill myself in protest of you too? 

No?

Then it is done.  I will protest you too!  Come death lead me away from these villains and fools, whores and monsters, . . . I can say no more.

Yet because of the stories Mr. Keeler tells himself, and his audience, they are literally blind to the harm government is doing to the people.  Because he tells himself as he munches on his shrimp and salad, that he wants to do good, he thinks that he actually is doing good.  That his party is ruining the people, taking their meager wages from them, in taxes yes, and in prices and price increases to a greater extent, and then using the power of government to drive housing, education, medical care, etc. beyond the reach of the people, is quite literally lost on Keeler as he stretches on his couch for his nap.

Every dollar spent by government should be regarded as theft from the people. But I am a conservative not a libertarian.  The charge of theft is a rebuttable presumption.  For example when it was proposed that the Golden Gate Bridge should be built and that the power of the state should be used to raise the capital, (through government bonds), and competition from ferries limited, etc. the project, the proposed expenditure, might be justified if it were shown that the bridge would open up Marin County real estate thereby lowering the cost of real estate for the people of San Francisco.

And this is what the advocates of the Golden Gate Bridge propounded.  The good of the people!  Yet, see how the people were betrayed.  No sooner had the people been conned out of their money than the rich people of San Francisco and Marin immediately set about separating the people from their bridge.  Senators Boxer and Feinstein in Marin and San Francisco respectively were part of the process by which the elite down zoned both counties driving up the cost of housing and forcing the middle class and poor out, leaving the people’s bridge for the benefit of the rich. 

(Shhhh!  Don’t wake up Mr. Jones.  He wouldn’t want to make any of these points.  Let him sleep.  The campaign will soon be over and he can go back to his “ethanol” plant.  Boxer and Feinstein are big supporters of Mr. Jones’ “ethanol.”  It is in fact a government monopoly.  People would not voluntarily agree to buy Mr. Jones’ “ethanol” because of the laws of physics.  (It takes more energy to make “ethanol” than it produces.  It is a poor bargain where no one benefits.  Well Mr. Jones benefits.  Benefits as long as his “opponent” Boxer and the other Marin Senator Feinstein support the “ethanol” fraud.)  Sleep Mr. Jones, sleep.)

This is the reality of the “tax and spend liberalism” which Mr. Keeler advocates.  This is the dark truth he shields his guilty liberal conscience from.  He knows that there is an “unfairness” in society but rather than investigate it he projects it onto the Republicans, who are the villains in the story he tells.  That the “unfairness” might be more basic, that it might stem from his own perverse ideology can not be admitted by him on account of his desire for a sound nap.

Keeler has contacts at KQED and Marin, possibly with Yvonne herself.  He has made many references over the years to my situation. (At one point I even considered if I was being targeted by old men with young wives:  Keeler, Imus, MacLaughlin, Swanson . . . Then it came to me.  I was only hearing from people who have radio microphones in front of them.  And what kind of people have radio microphones?  Self absorbed egotists, the kind of men who have second, third families, marrying younger and younger wives.)

What stories do the egomaniacal tell?   Comforting stories.  Stories full of kitsch.  They are never responsible for the harm they see all around them.  Imus was at first for the war but his ego found it more comfortable for him to now tell the story that he is against the war.  MacLaughlin also has found more restful snoozes sustaining his ego with a new story line:  such is the power of young wives.

For the longest time I could not understand O’Reilly’s lack of interest in the story of this website.  Here was a chance to expose his competitors, Weiner, Imus, the whole NPR involvement, then too the chance to expose ABC, and thereby possibly push FOX into the top three, displacing ABC.  A story of how powerful egotistical broadcast personalities used their power to destroy a man for no other reason than that they could.  This was a story that FOX should have lusted after.

Then find out what is going on, I found out that in April, when I was protesting Imus, (see Imus Protests: April), O’Reilly was talking dirty to a girl.

Counselor: . . .

A woman.  So what stories does O’Reilly tell himself.  He used to bitterly complain about his Federal taxes.  Now he can not beg Andrea enough to take $6 million off his hands?  Instead of talking dirty to Andrea he could have been on the phone to me, developing a story about how a rival network set out to destroy me . . . could have pushed FOX into the forefront,  a major story,  and he is talking to Andrea, holding the phone in one hand and----

Counselor: . . .

Lecture Notes:  10-26-04

Well I don’t see why everyone is getting so upset ----

Counselor:  No one is upset.

But why are they all talking about ---

Counselor:  They thought it a little strange that’s all.   You were talking about doomsday weapons and the end of the world one moment, and then you started talking about school fees and tuition.  The transition was a bit abrupt that’s all.

But I thought that’s what you meant . . .

Counselor:  Shhhhh!  You are on . . .

Ah!  Welcome back everyone . . . Some College visitors have expressed surprise that we should have described Bo Dietl as an amateur.  (see Lecture Notes: 10-25-04)

In civil litigation!  His prior experience as an “investigator” has been limited to knocking the heads of Brooklyn thugs together.

In the Mackris case Bo Dietl turned a straightforward employer-employee sexual harassment claim into a case of defamation, invasion of privacy, unauthorized release of confidential information, oppression, etc. etc.

See Bo this is what comes from having a mouth that is bigger than your brain. What do you think visitors?  Would you want to hire this loud mouthed coward?  Want to turn a small claim into a big one?  Or a big one into an even bigger one?  I think not.  Not very good advertising for Bo Dietl and Asses is it.

Of course, Don Imus, on the other hand is himself a loud mouth coward so no doubt he will still hire Bo.  ((see Psy Ops)  One College visitor even suggested that Bo Dietl may even have used GAB Robins to eliminate some competition for Bo Dietl and Asses.) 

The degenerate Don Imus today used the public air ways to issue a series of threats to unspecified victims, promising them that he would destroy their lives, warning them that he is “vicious.”  This is the same way Mrs. Jack Swanson described herself when in 2002 and 2003 she was carrying the Iman’s water.  (see Psy Ops)   “I’m vicious,” she said of herself.  Don you talk like Mrs. Jack Swanson,  are you as dumb as Mrs. Jack Swanson?

Yes! 

Imus concluded his rant with the boast,  “What are you going to do . . . hire an attorney?   I’ve got the best attorneys in the country.”  See how proud Imus is that the judiciary has been perverted by the rich.  Also see that there is no F.C.C. to stop him from using the public airways to issue his threats. 

I couldn’t understand why Imus was so upset with the F.C.C..  Even if they do issue a fine it will be paid by Viacom not Imus.  Then I realized what it was.  It was just the idea that someone would judge him.  Just the idea that there was someone with “authority” over him.  Expelled from high school.  Sent to juvenile Hall.  Forced into the Marine Corps.  His whole life he has been acting out against “authority.”  The F.C.C. represents the father figure for him.  (But why?  Latent homosexuality perhaps?)

Notice, conservatives, that here with Don Imus we see, the flaunting of the bling bling, the “gangsta” slang,   the mouthing of the empty liberal platitudes, as symbolized by his empty headed support for John F. F. Kerry, the Post Liberal elite unabashedly presenting  its true face.  The wizened junkie face of Don Imus.  The Post Liberal elite is here ascendant, in full possession of the powers of the state (the next President?); it fears no challenge to its power, not from the judiciary,  nor the F.C.C.:  those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.  

To be a real conservative we must stand for more than just lower taxes.  We must redress this abuse of power.  There will always be the rich, but they need not be given control of the state, should not be given control of the state.  Many stupidly assume that the rich favor free markets.  They do not.  Whenever given the chance they will take control of the state and manipulate the market --- if we let them.  We must make the Post Liberal elite see that it lives in the same world as the rest of us --- and that their children do as well.

So now what are you going to do Imus? 

You see Don, you have already destroyed my life, remember, GAB Robins?  This is the difference between me and your other victims:  I’m ready to die.  How about you?  Are you ready to die Don Imus?  In fact, the next time  you pass the dinning room why don’t you stick your head in and ask your young wife and her child if they are ready?  . . . for you to die.

It is always funny when it is about someone else isn’t it Don?   You gutless coward.        

Lecture Notes:  10-23-04

Once again our Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger leads California back to the future!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stepped out in front of the ordinary politicians and has endorsed Proposition 71.

With the passage of Proposition 71 California will hold its leadership position in the Life Sciences.  Because of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s leadership California has a chance to lead the world into the Fifth Day of Creation.

Why have we had to wait so long for the likes of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Why couldn’t we have had such leadership over the last decades? 

Think how much depends upon this one individual!    

        #          #           #           #           #          #

“There are a lot of things going on in this case . . . what we are going to do as investigators is take her credibility and show the court, if it ever goes there, show the court her credibility falling apart  . . . we are going to investigate you, we are going to uncover things about your life  that we already ha--- about your life, so you are wide open right now . . . Beware people.”    

---- Bo Dietl, 10-16-04

Note:  This is what Don Imus did to me in 2003 when I was working at GAB Robins in Concord, California.  These rich powerful people, Don Imus, Michael Weiner, and the rest, have used their power to interfere with my employment, my private relations, to drive me into ruin, to destroy me.  Beware people.  

Benedict P. Morelli

Attorney at Law

950 Third Ave
10th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Benedict P. Morelli;

You do not know me but you no doubt have heard of my tormenters whose oppression I have endured for over twelve years:  Michael Weiner, Don Imus, Bo Dietl, and of their friend,  Bill O’Reilly.  It is too late for me, but I wish to help you and your client. 

Bo Dietl’s “surveillance technicians” were used by Don Imus in 2003 when I worked for GAB Robins to  . . .  To Be Continued . . .

            *          *          *          *          *          *          *         

Number one Web Site for coverage of the number one story in Radio, as determined by Google?

Google Search Results for:

Imus, Weiner, O’Reilly:

Imus Protests April 2004
... Your knowledge of what Don Imus, and Michael Weiner, and Ron ... exercise,” your “sense of truth.” For example consider when Bill O’Reilly, just before ...
www.newruskincollege.com/id14.html - 90k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Lecture Notes: April
... Bill O’Reilly has advised his listeners not to be honest with even their wives ... that Mr. O’Reilly developed a close relationship with Michael Weiner, of hate ...
www.newruskincollege.com/id17.html - 47k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

Number one Web Site for coverage of the number one story in Radio, as determined by Yahoo?

1. New Ruskin College ... Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his limos and jets ... death I protest Don Imus, Michael Weiner, Mrs. Jack Swanson ...
2. newruskincollege.blogspot.com - 78k - Cached - More from this site
3. New Ruskin College.com

Counselor:   So when Mr. Bush said, “With a straight face, he said he had only one position on Iraq.   He must think we're on another planet,” . . .  that was . . . ?

It doesn’t work like that.  If Mr. Bush wants to get in on this he has to do something more than that.

Counselor:  Like what?

Well if he called Kerry an extraterrestrial.  Something like that.  Then we would let him join.

Counselor:  Well that raises the bar.  I don’t know . . . Oh,  how about this one:

BOULDER, COLORADO -- Engineers here at Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation are readying NASA's Deep Impact mission for shipping this month to Cape Canaveral, Florida.   Next stop: Comet Tempel 1.

A NASA Discovery-class spacecraft, the Deep Impact mission features the "Flyby" spacecraft that releases the "Impactor", hardware destined to run into with Comet Tempel 1. The spacecraft pair will give scientists their first close-up look at the interior of a comet.

So?  What’s the point?   It’s a science mission?

Counselor:  Yeah,  that’s what they want us to think.  But really it’s like those movies . . .

Yvonne, I’m starting to worry about you.  Are you ok?

Counselor:  After you die, out there, we will still be here at New Ruskin . . .?  Nothing here in the domain will change will it?

Oh, of course not.  Everything here will stay the same, this is the internet. 

Lecture Notes:  10-05-04        Junkie Nation III

If you can not defend America at $17.25 an hour then you can not defend America.

I was listening to Tammy Bruce discuss the Los Angeles grocery store strike.  Now that she is a conservative she is uncomfortable taking up the worker’s side but she did not want to take up with management either.  (The strike was over a slight increase in the portion of the health insurance costs the workers would pay.  Though the amount was not large the union leadership judged it a bad precedent that the workers should be made to pay more.  (Health insurance is an interesting example of where all the lies and hypocrisy of the political establishment are shown up for what they are.))

So Tammy Bruce took a middle position by pointing out that the average worker’s wage was “only” $17.25, under the contract.  The wage was not in dispute in the strike, but she wanted to know, “Why would you settle for only $17.25?”  She demanded of her audience,  “Don’t you want anything better?  Are you going to settle for that?”  she mocked.  

This is a line we get from Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Weiner, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, but most of all Don Imus, discussing his limos and jets and mansions.   The ‘How come you are not rich like us?’ challenge.

Now dears,  $17.25 is slightly above the national medium.  True, half the workers earn more, but also half the workers earn less.  And here you have the reason why these imposters are not really conservatives, or even the “patriotic” Americans that they claim to be. 

They are, with their superior ability, drive, ambition, (or was it just luck?), contemptuous of the rest.  They  defend the Free Enterprise System only because they have millions. 

There is nothing wrong with striving.   Strive!  An individual can always strive to “get ahead.”  Even whole societies can try to better themselves.  But for all your effort you can not undo the laws of the universe.  There will always be a top and a middle and sad to say a bottom.  (This is why none of them will discuss the Bell Curve or even the general topic of the genetic origins of cognitive ability.  They can not admit that there are limits on what can be achieved.  As noted earlier, (See Clones 2^nd Edition at the Max Weber Institute), it is typically American to insist that “All men are created equal,” all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.)

In other words there will always be a medium wage.  If you can not justify living in  America at $17.25 an hour then you can not justify America.  And saying, ‘OK, that is fine for starters but to get ahead . . . or yes, but the opportunities are really what make America great, etc. etc.’ are all merely evasions.  Some individuals may rise up above the medium, but by definition there will always be a medium.  (This is why Economics is a tautology.)   That America can be justified for ordinary citizens living decent ordinary lives at $14 an hour, or $11.25, or $5.75, etc. would simply not occur to them.  Just as admitting that the national average I. Q. is 100 seems Un-American so too “settling”  for an “ordinary” job making an “average” income also seems vaguely unpatriotic.   

The problem with these carnival barkers and hucksters is that their “patriotism,” their “conservatism ,” is phony.  Their insistence on the “American Values,” of “success,” “achievement,” and “American optimism,” has been bought.  One suspects that if they were not multi-millionaires they would not feel that “America is the greatest country in the world.” 

Some of them are clearly ill at ease discussing ordinary Americans, and their ordinary concerns.  Bruce’s incomprehension that half of America would not only “accept” $17.25 but would rejoice over it, revel in it, spend the weekend celebrating that they had reached a point in their lives that they could make so much, is an example.  Michael Weiner found himself, (when he was still a “compassionate conservative,” before he became an “independent nationalist”), trying to defend the minimum wage.  He was apparently aware that as a conservative he should be against the minimum wage but like Bruce, (both former leftists, homosexuals, looking for a niche in the radio business), he could not bring himself to oppose it.

He could only ask his conservative listeners to have “some heart.”  He simply could not think through the problem on any other level.  “You know, you conservatives, it is not all with your head . . .” he whined. 

How might a real conservative defend the minimum wage?  If you were really a conservative and not just pretending to be one to get a radio gig, you might start by recognizing that conservatives are not libertarians.  We recognize that the state may have to interpose itself to restore balance in society.  This is especially so when the state has interfered in society and disrupted the social balance.

Unlike libertarians we do not have religious scruples about using the power of the state.  We have time and again pointed out all the ways the elites have taken over the power of the state for their own ends.  They have used the state to block entry into markets, created monopolies, erected barriers to the entry into the professions, and even ordinary occupations such as beauticians, and street cart vending.  Regulations have been piled up on every area of life and the tax code is annually churned just to guarantee its utter incomprehensibility. Actual traffic barriers have been erected to keep the vulgar mass out, and zoning codes guarantee the elite control over not only their property but everyone else’s property as well. 

School districts are tightly regulated to make sure stray students do not cross over the boundaries that the zoning codes are indented to establish.  We do not want our little darlings to go to school with the wrong sort!  Still we call them “public schools.”  For generations they were unequally funded not withstanding the claim of “public” and our conceits about free, open and equal, etc. etc. Even now no one would claim these “public” schools are equal and the bureaucracy and unions maintain a strangle hold to prevent innovation. 

Well, one could go on, . . . suffices to say that the powerful have manifold control over all the organs of society and the combined effect is to stifle the market and limit the freedom of the people.  Therefore, simply setting a minimum wage, an admittedly small counter balance, a pitifully small counter balance, is hopefully only a step to redressing the injustice wrought in the abuse of state power for the special interests of the elite.

But to make these arguments Michael Weiner would have to have genuinely thought about these social political economic issues.  But Michael Weiner is a fraud.  He just wanted a right wing radio niche.  So he used the argument he might have used when he was wooing Ginsberg, “heart, man, you got to have heart.”   He could not make these arguments because he really does not care about any of these issues.  He is lost in his own “fat relentless ego.”

Alan Watts said that Americans insisted that all men are created equal because if it should turn out that they are, in fact, not equal, America will feel disappointed.   They would feel humanity had let them down.  As we have explained this is certainly true of Bill O’Reilly, but it is even more so true of Hannity and Beck.

Both have public humiliation days when they hold ordinary Americans up to ridicule.  Hannity does a “Man on the Street Interview,” and Beck has his “Moron Jeopardy.”  Both seek to demonstrate how stupid people are, with Beck usually shouting, “And these are the people who will decide the election.”

Hannity and Beck in particular regularly boast of their superior “American optimism.”  (I’m more optimistic than you.  Of course they never seem to consider that optimism is easier with millions in the bank and trust.)  But during their public humiliation days their “American optimism” quickly disappears into something like fear and loathing, as they confront America with adolescent ridicule. It turns out that Hannity and Beck are not quite the sunny optimist they so often brag of being.

All the hosts have segments where they demonstrate the stupidity of the human race by reading the answers to questionnaires.  Typically they conclude by saying,   “and 20% didn’t even know that . . . etc.”  High School students are a common source of amusement.  Yet these repeated, boringly repeated segments all arise from the same source.  They all simply refuse to accept the bell curve distribution of cognitive ability just as they reject the distribution of income. 

Limbaugh has often used the teacher competency test as an example of the general stupidity of mankind.  (Mr. Limbaugh has it in for schools, which he pronounces “screwools”  as in “screw” the schools.  He has many times explained that he acted out in school and appears never to have established a respect for, or appreciation of,  learning.)

But teacher competency testing perfectly illustrates the problems that arise if one is unwilling to accept the limitations of human existence.  My understanding of conservatism  is that to be truly called a conservative one must firstly recognize reality, and the limitations reality imposes on the policy maker.

Question:  If the teacher competency test were designed so that only the average student in the graduating college class passed the exam, how many of the teachers would have passed?

Answer:  Almost none.

Why?  Because teachers are all most all of them drawn from the bottom third of the graduating college class.  The tests have been “dumbed down” because of this reason:  you would not have any teachers if the test were more difficult.

This failure to comprehend the reality of the human situation is not limited to radio carnival barkers and hucksters.  The high school diploma suffers for the same reason.  The average I. Q. of 100 is not sufficient to be competitive for college.  This is a fact of human existence.  But the stupid American insistence that “All men are created equal,” utterly confuses the public discussion.  If you prepare the students for college, 75% will fail.  If you have a curriculum for the middle 50%, still 25% will fail and the top 25% will not be challenged.  You need a different curriculum for the different, may I say unequal?, students, may I say human beings? 

But the point I want to leave you with is this:  Can you not see that the same egotism of the carnival barkers that caused them to ridicule the average wage, also causes them to ridicule the average I. Q.?   100 is the average.  You need to be one full standard deviation above the mean, 115, to qualify for even being considered “marginal college material,” according to Dr. Charles Murray.

Counselor:  So you were lucky?

Boy, don’t I know it ------  Yvonne!

Counselor:  What?

This stuff is confidential.

Counselor:  Oh, sorry.

Only 25% of the population is above 115.  Again, I say, if you can not justify America for people with I. Q.s  between 85 and 115,  that is 50% of the population then you can not justify America.   Can you not see that it is the same issue?

Whose country is this?  For whom are we arranging things?  The top 25% or the bottom 75%? 

I know I over used this word, but you are hypocrites.

Your smarmy smirking about your own “success,”  your gloating pride in your “achievement” at “this point in my life,” etc. etc. is hucksterism, because you will not recognize the reality of the situation ---- out – side – your – fing – egos.

And this is why you are not really conservatives.  You fail to see the fundamental reality of the situation.  If you did then you would not be surprised that 20% do not know where Europe is located, or that the average teacher does not know Dr. Werner Heisenberg  or his uncertainty principle.  Your asinine use of “man on the street,”  or “moron,”  to say nothing of Michael Weiner’s ridiculous trumpeting of his three puny degrees while shouting like one of the deranged, escaped from the mental hospital, all perfectly illustrate the point that your egotism blinds your reason.

Yes, 20% of the population considers it a good day if they are not run over by the engines of our complex, twisted society;  but again I ask, whose society is it?

If you can not defend them then get the gas chambers ready you nimrods;  for you have learned nothing.

Don’t wait for the new bio-weapons.   Kill us now. 

Have you been listening to Michael Weiner’s tapes that he clandestinely recorded of me?  Did you listen to me crying when my father died?  Did you catch the part when Yvonne and my sister refused to meet me before my father died?  Did you hear my anguish?

Did Don Imus entertain you with what he had Frank Blaha at GAB Robins do to me?  How he had Bo Dietl’s people follow me?

Did Michael Krasney record his call to me at AAA Auto Club?

I dare you.  Kill us now.  No?

Then I will kill myself,  to show with what contempt I regard you.