6.26.2006

MEXIFORNIA

      We have officially passed the tipping point in California where plain ol’ whites are outnumbered by the combination of Hispanic, African-American, Asian and all “other” citizen voters (at least they claim to be citizens). California already hears loud calls from the “new” Latino community to secede from the Gringo’s Union.
 

      Just as Stalin took over Romania, it might start with a non-violent but aggressive campaign for California to abdicate its US Statehood. Some sort of “unofficial” Mexifornia government might be installed; one recognized by the Latino population but not by anyone else; paralleling California’s regularly elected officials. One morning, Golden Staters will wake up to a very different dawn.

      The secessionists already have infiltrated California’s social and government services bureaucracies to a degree where they are one step away from being de facto governors. They will have the support of a good deal of California’s legally-elected officials, many of whom are, or will be, Mexican-American, and the usual liberal Democrats who believe they know which side their jalapeno bread is buttered on. They will have the support of most of the State’s University faculties and student bodies, the State’s newspapers and journalists, and many others who have no idea what they really are supporting.

If serious resistance is met, Mexifornian leaders will turn to their enforcers ...the drug cartel which has infected the State right under everyone’s eyes. Thousands of gang members are just waiting for California to be de-Americanized; for the police forces to be neutered so they may be free to intimidate anyone who resists The Movement.

      There will be a special voting day, different from the US’s regular voting day. They will have a special name for it. Hispanic-only candidates will square-off, debate “Hispanic issues” and perhaps even advertise their campaigns in the only-too-willing media, all at reduced advertising prices. Of course non-Hispanics won’t be welcome in the race. Of course the real Governor of California will not challenge the secessionists because he won’t want to start a civil war, so he will try to negotiate from a weak and untenable position.

      Quasi-mayors and a governor will be elected to preside over Mexifornia. Little by little, everything will move closer to a “free Mexifornia.” Hispanics will dance around the streets and come up with a new Independence Day, probably Cinco de Mayo. They will begin the final process of disenfranchising the gringo from whatever he owns, built or controls. Mexifornia will be degring-ized. Mexican radio and tv stations will overpower the stations you now watch and listen to.

      But certain other things will be happening, probably unnoticed by the gleeful new Hispanic leaders. State revenues will fall dramatically as large corporations relocate and small businesses flee for their lives. The State’s financial ratings will plunge. The real estate market will be decimated by white flight. Other minorities, the African-American community in particular, will exhibit growing antagonism to the new leadership and, fearing the loss of its own entitlements and its traditional domination of certain lines of employment, will begin its own counter-revolution.

      The crime rate will soar as gangs go unchecked by a police department psychologically unprepared and overwhelmed by the insurgency. The new governor will turn not to Washington DC for help, but to Mexico City. Prepared well in advance, Mexico’s Presidente will send Federalis in to help control Los Angeles and other hotbeds of violence. Once here, they will have the opposite effect of course.

      Finally, the crisis will fall at the doorstep of Congress and the White House. The Constitution forbids State secession from the Union. What America’s Civil War was REALLY about.

      Whoever the U.S. President is at that point will have an incredibly difficult decision to make. Does he (or she) allow California to become something other than one of the fifty United States? When the President and Congress conclude, as they must, that it is against the best interests of the Union to lose California, what steps will be taken to avoid calamity? Will the Minute Men next be forced to build a fence between California and neighboring States, Nevada and Arizona?

      The exodus of businesses, and white citizens heading for Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, has already started. Taxes, crime, and gun sales are up. But California is far too great a State to leave. We must save her from this ugly fate. If California is lost, can Florida, Hawaii and other States be far behind?

      The President and Congress better get on the ball, because from where I sit we are just about there. One or two more steps, one slip and California will plunge into an abyss that makes the San Andreas Fault seem like a freeway pothole.

      Our leaders in Washington DC always seem to be shocked! – caught completely flat-footed by major events – 9/11, hurricanes, floods, terrorism and all the rest. I doubt they really understand what chaos is brewing on their Left Coast.

      Do you?

6.24.2006

THE LIBERAL–CONSERVATIVE WARS



“The most hurtful thing
 is not what comes from our adversaries,
 it’s what comes from our friends.”
~Gloria Steinem

The most hurtful thing is not what comes from our adversaries, it's what comes from our friends. Gloria Steinem
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/gloriastei690606.html?src=t_adversaries

The most hurtful thing is not what comes from our adversaries, it's what comes from our friends. Gloria Steinem
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/adversaries.h





Lord, what do you do if somebody in your family is seriously on the opposite side of politics from you?

Today, liberals and conservatives are openly hostile toward one another. Let's face it, philosophically, they hate one another. So, how do you deal with a family member who hates your politics? Perhaps it will help to define the differences.

"Liberal" is generally associated with “Democrat” and those on the pretty darn “Far Left.” Judging by the masses of Liberal defense lawyers and the ACLU, Libs are soft on crime - unless the criminal is a Conservative. They are anti-death penalty for convicted murderers and rapists. They would stack the courts with junkie judges who allow multi-time convicted criminals to go free so they can get counseling on how to not get caught next time. One can argue it's their way of unclogging the court system and making more prison space for all the Republicans they hope to take down. Conservatives, on the other hand, are generally associated with red-necks, yahoos, gun toters and Bible belts. Conservatives usually go for building more prisons and appointing hanging judges. If a few innocents get fried with the guilty, St. Peter will apologize to them at the Pearly Gates, and somehow make it up to them. But they usually have better haircuts, don’t drink too much and are willing to help a stranger.

Libs are generally anti-war, except will pretend to be “hawkish” for votes. No news there. But when you get right down to it, they are anti-military. Hell, all that flag saluting, and the National Anthem make them squirm and feel very unsophisticated, very un-French. Unless some odd-looking grossly overweight singer with braided hair performs the song with maybe an other-nation choral influence. On the other hand, Conservatives are known to cheer for the military, win or lose, wear their hearts on their camo sleeves, right next to their NASCAR patches and flags, place their right hand on their heart and sing along, though usually with a total lack of soul. But hey, we can't all be James Brown.

Libs are usually socialistic. Some go all the way to Marxism. They believe in dividing the nation into factions so voters are easier to manipulate. They believe they can tax the rich enough so that all poor people will in this way become less poor. Of course the wealthiest Democrats (including many in Congress) are rumored to have their money in off-shore banks so they won't have to pay any of these annoying taxes they want to levy on you. Liberal Congressmen want to tax the rich (anyone just above the poverty level) but not the super-rich (like them) and throw the money at social ills like a public education system which in forty years has been unable to educate the public. Oh sure, Libs know full well these ills cannot be cured that way - but hey – lots of their small-time donors will have jobs that way. 

Conservatives want to cut taxes. They still want money to fund education, like for school vouchers, so families are free to shop for a better quality of education for their children. But the profits can go to private school owners who are more than likely Republican. Conservatives don't want higher taxes. But they will allow corporations (which contribute to Republicans’ re-election funds) to raise the price of everything, so in the end what's the difference - your wallet's drained either by taxation or by inflated product pricing. If there is any kind of Treasury revenue surplus, Conservatives would spend it on national security and war toys, creating even more profit for their corporate friends. But a few Republicans are actually Conservative, therefore not socialist, Marxist commies. They are just good old-fashioned red, white and blue capitalists who don’t approve of phony Liberal bleeding heart philosophy; they prefer good old-fashioned genteel greed.

Liberals would cut the military budget and put that money to good use funding PBS and other money-losing enterprises which make them "feel" good. Conservatives would like to use the military to permanently shut-down the PBS propaganda machine with prejudice. But let’s please keep Antiques Roadshow.

Liberals revel in what has become the anything-goes cultural cesspool of music, theater, art and social relationships. They love children so much they want to make man-boy sex legal. They think about gender issues 24/7... everything from how many different kinds of bathroom signs they can come up with, to the widest possible variety of lifestyles to be protected against “phobic” Conservatives. Conservatives have this crazy idea that man–woman coupling is how nature evolved humanity. They prefer '50s pop music and dreadful Christian singing groups whose skin, hair and teeth are so squeaky clean you want to spray them with WD40, but whose hearts need a good shot of Fantastik.

Libs are in general anti-god, pro-any-kind-of-sexual-deviency, pro-abortion, even late-term, partial-birth horror. Conservatives are in general against any of these things. Except maybe the sexual thing... especially if it involves cigars or mayonnaise.

Liberals travel around the world in heat-spewing private jets to complain about global-warming. They would prefer to protect an endangered Hunta-virus-carrying rat than protect America's children from perverts and deviants, because they vote Democrat. Liberal journalists (forgive the redundancy) squeal like stuck pigs if an American soldier kills a suspected enemy combatant by accident, or looks at a prisoner of war the wrong way, but they seem to have no big problem when our enemies torture, behead or desecrate Americans. They pay no attention to the daily slaughter of innocent and not-so-innocent Americans by gang members in our big cities, of which Liberals usually are mayors. Liberals hex any president, vice-president or congressman who is Republican. It galls Democrats when they are not "the party in power." On the other hand, whenever Republicans are the party in power, they seem to have no idea how to act that way. So they run away from any controversy or confrontation with Democrats. These kinds of worries can really mess up your concentration on the putting green.

In short, Liberals are pretty much against things the way they are, and are for anything which degrades, devalues and desecrates American traditions while accepting cash under the table. It’s their way of being grateful for the sacrifices of our foerbears. Conservatives are usually for keeping the American Way of Life pretty much the way it is... or rather... was. In 1824. Republicans among the Conservatives are all for apple pie, baseball and flags as long as higher prices can be charged for them.

So if you are a Conservative and you have a vocal Liberal woman in your household, or if you are a Conservative and work for a company run by Liberals (are there any other kind?), or if you are one of the three or four admitted Conservatives in Hollywood, well... how shall I put this... I pity you.

Just imagine what it must be like for Mary Matalin to live with James Carville. No, no, I don't mean because he looks like Nosferatu, I mean because his act is that of a flaming Liberal. Well, now she’s sort of disavowed the GOP, but I don’t believe any of the good lady’s given reasons. But they seem to do all right, don't they? I have a feeling one of them, or both, never really was what they claimed to be. There's no other way to explain such a relationship. They say opposites attract, but this is ridiculous. With normal people, a husband and wife so opposite politically would eventually burst into flames from all the friction.

Why would a Lib male today be married to a woman anyway? If he were a true Lib, he'd be married to another fellow. Or maybe a part-time or once-upon-a-time fellow. He certainly wouldn't have natural offspring; he'd want his wife to exercise her right to control her own body and get a very, very late term abortion, right? Like after the doctor slaps the baby, he should stab it.

When it comes to adversarial politics, maybe love can indeed conquer all. 

Nah.

6.19.2006

Love thine Enemy... pfff!

~
Where, exactly, in the U.S. Constitution does it say we are somehow bound to love our enemy?

Now, I'm not saying that following Christ's exhortation to love our enemy as we love ourselves would be a bad thing. It would however be a stupid thing in these treacherous times. Love the leaders of Iran, Argentina and North Korea who, daily, tell us they intend to do us in?

But that's what our loony Left would have us do, isn't it? Forgive those who send their unwanted to our country illegally. Forgive the knife-wielding, throat-slitting, head-cutting folks from other lands. Forgive international organizations who rob us blind. Of course they don't come right out and say "forgive." No, Marxists use rhetoric as their cloaking device, so our Lefties call for us to "Stop killing innocent women and children." But they don't ask our enemies to stop killing us. Or they ask us to welcome tens of millions more "hard-working" illegal invaders to our streets because somebody has to pick the lettuce for our tables. Again with the lettuce. No wonder I hate lettuce. By characterizing our enemies in these soft folksy terms, the Left is, in no uncertain terms, encouraging our enemies. What would you call encouraging our enemies to do us harm? Insane? No question. Traitorous? You bet.

Now, the last time I checked, the Left was still quite virulently anti-Christian. Like in don't you Christians dare put any of your symbols out in public where we can see them because they make us feel... well, I don't know what a symbol of Christ makes somebody like Howard Dean or the ACLU gang feel. Guilty? Inferior? Superior? Squirmy? What? But if the Left is so anti-Christ, why exactly are they so hot to borrow Jesus's exhortations to forgive? Is there something just a little hypocritical about anti-Christian Marxists espousing the teachings of the very man they seek to destroy?

You would think that our current-day Leftist Marxist Progressives would espouse the more robust philosophy of someone in their own tent. Someone like Stalin or Mao, whose way of forgiving their enemies was to slaughter them by the millions.

Frankly, if the Left would adopt Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao's techniques, and use them against America's avowed enemies, a lot of us might actually think about crossing over to vote for them. After all, our Republican friends in Congress and other leadership roles have proven they have no stomach for finishing off our enemies. In fact they seem to have no stomach for anything the rest of us want: a quick and definitive end to the current war. A quick and definitive solution to our border problems. A quick and definitive solution to the many other problems of our time.

If they had anything, Lenin, Stalin et al. had quick and definitive solutions to the problems of their time. None of the solutions involved forgiving their enemies, or turning the other cheek.

Even clergymen would do better to tend their flock and stop imploring the rest of us to forgive our nation's enemies. The last thing we need now are the holier-than-thou offering our enemies aid and comfort. Jesus was far more realistic than our contemporary clergy. Would Christ exhort us to forgive those who are trying to eradicate him and his followers? Would he have us turn the other cheek when we are mercilessly attacked? Not on your life. The only turning he would advise is turning our enemies to dust.

It's a terrible, terrible thing to suggest turning your enemies to dust. But the world will be a far safer place without these hard-core killers. Only when they are gone should we consider forgiveness. Forgiveness for their supporters; our Leftist politicians, academicians and journalists.
~

6.14.2006

Ann Coulter

~
Ann's new book, "Godless" (in which she presents Liberalism as a godless religion) is doing very well. Ann has been making the circuit of talk shows promoting her latest book. I happen to have seen many of her recent appearances. Some people do better writing about their ideas than they do speaking about them.

I like Ann's writing. It's ascerbic, witty, clever and as far as I am concerned her targets deserve everything she dishes out to them. Now take the current criticism of "Godless" by the effete Media. These macaronies seem to have fastened on her comments about the several wives of men who died in the Trade Towers on 9/11. These women have been using their sadly-acquired celebrity to espouse a very far Left Democratic point of view. According to the scripts they are following, it's all Bush's fault. But then this is no surprise to us, right? Of course not. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld at al. killed their husbands. In one small part of "Godless," Ann Coulter takes on these once-obscure femmes who, with the help of the Left, generated their fortunes and subsequent fame as a result of their husband's misfortunes. According to the talking heads on the Left, Ann's most aggregious barb is that she has never seen women who so seem to enjoy their husband's demise. Well, who can argue they are not enjoying the resulting benefits.

The effetes charge this is incredily cruel and nasty and that Ann should be castigated and worse, that her book should be banned from all decent bookstores. And there-in lies proof of Ann's premise. The Democratic Liberal Left canonizes those public figures whose backgrounds, they scheme, will make it very difficult for Conservative Republicans to challenge without seeming to be cruel and nasty. But Ann has seen through this charade and has thrown it right back at them. Who are they to tell Ann and the rest of us we are not allowed to challenge these women, or Cindy Sheehan or John Murtha or John Kerry or any of the rest of those with "hallowed" backgrounds? If Cindy Sheehan calls President Bush a "bastard" who "killed her son," are we not allowed to challenge her patently looney claim simply because Ms Sheehan is a grieving mother? Perhaps if we really believed she was grieving and not preening in the warm glow of celebrity. Should we not challenge the claims of Kerry simply because he holds some questionably-acquired combat medals, as if that gives him immunity? Are we to remain silent when we clearly see opportunistic (and treasonous if you ask me) politicians like Murtha using the travails of our combat troops in Iraq to advance his miserable career? That's how the Left would like you to think. But Ann has poked a hole in their Marxist tactic.

When Ms Coulter appears on the talk show circuit, however, and goes up against tough street Liberals mano-a-mano she usually doesn't do all that well. That's because the game is rigged, and she ought to know better. I suppose she figures that's the price of promoting her book sales. Endure the slings and arrows to get on that NYT Best-Sellers list. But even Traditionalist talkers Hannity, O'Reilly and Savage come down on Ann. Perhaps they are envious of her success. Or want to maintain some sense of "reasonableness." One can hardly understand why Savage wouldn't embrace her ascerbic wit. It's right down his alley. Do we sense vagina envy there?

I would suggest to Ann that she would do well to take a serious course in on-camera communication. She does it so well on paper. But her power is diminished in her personal appearances which often degenerate into girlishness. We Conservatives need all the Ann's we can get on our side. People with wit and the ability to see through the Left's chimeric "goodness." When we get a good one like her, we should do everything we can to support her; buy her books, read her columns, and shield her from tossed pies. And in my case, offer some fatherly and experienced advice.
~

6.08.2006

Condemnation by Silence

~
Dan Bartlett, White House counselor to President Bush recently said that press reports of U.S. Marines killing civilians in Haditha, Iraq, “are unsettling for the American people.”

Unsettling?

UnSETTling!?

You seem like a fine man, Mr Bartlett. But, please, don't speak for us. What's unsettling to many of us is how The Commander-in-Chief gloats when "his" Marines, his Army, and his Air Force do so amazingly well, but when something goes wrong, the President and and the Secretary of Defense suddenly seem to go AWOL from their military.

What's unsettling, Mr Bartlett, is this feeling we have in the pit of our stomachs that our President cares more what effete Internationalists may think of vague "reports" and charges made, and probably made-up by our enemy, than he cares about those under his command.

Many of us are old enough to remember how it went in the Viet Nam era, and most of us are smart enough to have figured out that our enemies lie, contrive and kill their own people in order to make the US look bad, knowing America's Leftist Media - let's call it what it is; our Marxist Media - will magnify any possible misdeeds of our military because, when you get down to the nitty gritty... our Marxist Media despises the military. But only the mighty US military.

What's unsettling, Mr Bartlett, is that President Bush, Sec'y Rumsfeld and the rest of our "leaders" also know all the above and yet... they tap dance under the spotlight, with pathetic responses such as if any of our military have committed crimes they will be brought to justice. As if it's all black-and-white, cut-and-dry... our military did what you sent them there to do, Mr Rumsfeld, maybe a little too well for your stomach, so let's hang 'em out to dry and try 'em so you and your boss can continue to grovel for the Internationalist intellectuals, so you can get on with being sophisticated leaders of the free world.

Are you trying to tell us, Mr Bartlett, that the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense of The United States of America can't demand their own fighting men be given every benefit of every doubt (and believe me there are many doubts) and not be treated worse than captured enemy combatants, even before they are formally charged with anything!? No. What do they do? The President and Sec'y of Defense don't seem to want to get their lily white hands dirty, so they turn a blind eye to their own troops. This is condemnation by silence. They allow their Marines, honorable men who have served two and even three tours in Iraq and elesewhere, to be incarcerated. Put in shackles! While the enemy, down in Gitmo, is treated like some special holy person with his special holy needs. And you wonder why our mid-level officers don't re-up, Mr Bartlett? They are more worried about being destroyed by their own military justice than they are about the enemy! Do you blame them, Mr Bartlett?

What's unsettling, Mr Bartlett, is that we feel that our President and Secretary of Defense don't seem to have the cajones to tell Congressman Murtha and his ilk what they can do with their anti-military speeches.

Now let me unsettle you, Mr Bartlett. Some of us Americans don't give a damn what happened in Haditha, or Abu Graib for that matter. We know our enemies bomb innocent men, women and children, then run home and hide behind their own women and children, pretending to be Ozzie and Harriet. In my book that makes them all complicit in any treachery their men have done, just like the VC in 'Nam. That's what terrorist "insurrectionists" do! If our men made some mistakes there, so what! It's a war! Helll-o! If you're not going to have the guts to stand behind your military when they do the dirty work YOU sent them there to do, well then admit that underneath all that blue serge you're wearing there lies a little bit of yellow, and get your men out of harm's way. Don't sit there like John Kerry, acting surprised, like you thought you were sending them on a Boy Scout jamboree.

What's unsettling, Mr Bartlett, is that it seems our President and the Secretary of Defense have drawn their guns, cocked the hammers, taken aim, and have now become too soccer-mom'd to pull the goddamn trigger... instead hiding behind the apron of "the military code of justice." Maybe our President should sit in the Oval Office and seek some courage from ol' Harry Truman. Harry would have called into the oval office the Marine Commandant who seems hell-bent on condemning these men, and he would have torn him a new one. By that afternoon, the Marines who were going to be convenient sacrificial goats would have received medals of honor and been recognized as the heroes they are.

Unsettled, Mr Bartlett?
~

6.06.2006

The Leftstream Media

~
We who believe in the good and righteous traditions of America often seem to be outweighed, if not outnumbered, by the forces who don't. Our will, when not as determined as our opponent's, can easily bend under the daily barrage of negativity spewed out by the Leftstream Media, corrosive decisions by Leftist judges, the wrecking-ball of the Marxist ACLU and its legion of anti-tradition warriors, and lately even our NWO Congress and President.

Under this morale-crushing weight I hear us saying things like "We can't do anything about it." But this is demonstrably not true. The Leftstream Media and those whack-job Progressive-Socialists who populate it simply paint every day's picture with a steel grey pallette, paintings which, like Salvatore Dali's best, present a completely distorted picture of reality. They fill a week's news cycle with President Bush's foolish remark branding The Minute Men "vigilantes." Recall how angry that made us? This kind of selective reporting, repeated hundreds of times each day, is designed to make the weak-willed among us think, why if the President of the United States himself, a so-called Conservative, doesn't support the idea of border security, why all must be lost.

Yet, we see progress at the border. Not yet nearly enough to be sure, but the issue is now firmly on the table and Washington DC is getting an earful (not to mention mailboxes full of bricks) of just how steadfast most American's are on this issue. 6,000 Guardsmen are not enough to do the job, but things may happen now that they are being deployed at the border. Unforseen things. Perhaps there will be an unanticipated serious military confrontation. The invaders may slink off to other border regions, infuriating yet more Americans who live near the border. Perhaps those who watch from Washington will finally begin to grasp the depth and sweep of this problem. Constant pressure from you, the Main Street Majority will force them to put more resources where all right-minded people know they are needed.

And so it goes with all the big issues of our time. Do not be distracted, bamboozled or discouraged by the lies you are fed every day by the Leftstream Media. Likewise, do not be distracted by the Conservative talk shows which reiterate the lies of the Left, pretending to disprove them but always teasing you by presenting "the other side" because they know it rattles your nerves and keeps you tuned to their broadcast. When Congress or the President says something you don't like to hear, you are forced to hear it over and over and over, first by the Leftstream Media and then by our "friends" on Conservative talk shows, each eking out as much benefit as possible from your angst. First they tease you with a news headline they know you will think is good, but then add something like "Or will it back-fire?" so your opponent will think it's good. Don't allow either one of them to fool you. They are doing it for ratings. For profit. Not for your benefit.

Rely on your God-given good sense, your Main Street smarts, to see through the manure pitched at you from both sides. Hang on to your values. Don't give an inch. The battle is heated, we Traditionalists are looking down the barrels of poor misguided Karl Marx's misguided legions and we dare not flinch. For that's exactly what they want to see you do. Their tactic is to wear down your resolve, day by day, until you throw in the towel. Now more than ever, be steadfast. Stand together. Don't be deceived by their strategy of subterfuge which makes you think you are losing the Culture War, the greatest war America has ever faced. You, not they, have ageless Tradition, Righteousness and Numbers on your side.
~

6.01.2006

Thank you, Sister

~
If there is someone I am more wary of than a politician, lawyer or journalist, it's a professor. But as I am always careful to analyze my own prejudices (yes I have a few), I realize this may not be a fair assessment because, well, I have an old personal gripe about a certain professor.

When I was just out of college, a century ago, and had just begun my first "real" job in the advertising business, my boss asked me to fill in at a high school "career day" talk for him. He had been invited to speak at a well-known New Jersey Catholic high school, and being Jewish, he said he felt uncomfortable with the situation. Truth be told he wasn't uncomfortable because he was Jewish; he was terrified to speak in front of an audience, any audience. Knowing I was the product of Catholic schooling, he tossed the assignment to me. But I was just a dopey kid myself, damp behind the ears. I hadn't been out of school long enough to have any idea if mine was a good career choice or not, and either way had no idea what to tell these kids. But, alas, we who serve must not ask why, ours is to do or die.

Funny, I don't recall the school. It wasn't St. Benedict's because I had a lot of friends who went there and I would have remembered that. It wasn't Seton Hall Prep, because I attended SH and certainly would have remembered that. What I do remember is being introduced to a room filled with bright-eyed youngsters. Unlike the two aforementioned institutions were at the time, this school was co-ed. The kids listened politely as I prattled on about why it might be a good idea for them to get into the advertising field. I didn't think anything I said was very relevant to them. But it didn't seem to matter. One of their teachers, a priest, popped into the room briefly, and nodded as if blessing my talk. My boss was officially off the hook.

Afterward, there was a reception. All of us speakers were invited for refreshments and more blathering. As it turns out, I was the youngest of the speakers by at least twenty years! Some of the other speakers were professors from various colleges in the area. I suddenly found myself confronted by two of them... I could tell by the English tweed jackets with obligatory leather patches on the elbows. Now you would think that men, presumably possessed of some intellectual stature, upon seeing that I was such a harmless pup, would have welcomed me in their midst and offered some light words of encouragement. Not these two. I was treated like a cheesy interloper from the "real" world. While they probably had touted the appeal of such estimable careers as archeology, psychology or astro-physics, I was going on about creative thinking and advertising. One of the profs took great delight trying to intellectually slice and dice me. I reacted as good-naturedly as I could to his demeaning comments. I suppose I was intimidated by the smell of English Leather.

As the day came to an end, another of the school's teachers, a nun who apparently heard much of the slicing and dicing, approached me. This kindly lady thanked me and then added, in a voice loud enough for my professorial friends to hear, that according to the students I was the most popular speaker of the day. Then looking back over her shoulder at the suddenly silent prof's, sister walked me out to my car.

I have no idea if what she said was true or not. Surely it must have been something of an exaggeration. But it didn't really matter to me then or now. What mattered was that this sweet sister, a humble high school teacher, had more class, more sense, and more character than those pompous professors.

Over the years I gave a good many talks to all kinds of groups for all kinds of reasons, and truth be told, I took to it pretty well. Contrary to the condescending profs, I found the advertising field to be challenging, enjoyable and rewarding. But if I ever found myself wanting for inspiration, I just remembered my kindly nun and how she lifted my spirits. And I remembered the professors and their supercilious attitude. That always generated enough energy and determination for me to meet the day's challenge.
~