Perhaps the most horrendous aspectnof Reagan’s shooting was the relativenequaninaity with which it was acceptednby the public at large. The consensus,nhere and all over the world, is that wenhave become resigned to the acceptancenof violence which, together with thenmonstrous ubiquitousness of handguns,nhas made life a nightmare and, at thensame time, has established that nightmarenas normal. A fatal error is therebynimposed upon us all, an error that derivesnfrom distorted Freudian notionsnand insidiously maintains that we arenall mentally disordered to some degree,nthus some sort of derangement is thennorm rather than the exception—andntherefore its manifestations escapenmoral judgment. But an act of crime,niniquity or wickedness is a moral occurrence.nAs long as we are restrained fromndecisive methods of dealing with thosenwho indulge in such crimes, the futurenof the American civilization is in question.nIn spite of the outcries from psychologists,nit seems to us that the summarynhanging of a lunatic assassin mightncontribute more to the healing of mentalndiseases than countless conventionsnat which adulatory speakers elaboratenon the tender care of various psychosesnas the most precious legacy of thenWestern ethos.nIt’s ironic that it was a son of annupper-class family who attempted tonmurder President Reagan, who wasnelected mostly by workers and farmers.nTo us, it seems like this kind of insanityncould be cured, if only we could abolishnthe notion of psychology as the ultimatenwisdom for conditioning humanndestiny, and eject the judges whosenpompous fancies of social consciencenmake a farce of the law.nKid LibnWe were recently treated to a treatisenon children’s rights by one Mr. PaulnWeingarten, courtesy of the ChicagonTribune, In it we could learn some interestingnthings. For instance: in somen48inChronicles of Culturenstates a 13-year-old is considered annadult when it comes to obtaining birthcontrolndevices or an abortion. In thenstate of Washington, a child can demandna different residence from his or hernparents, and the parents are then legallyn^iMknforced to pay child support to whomeverntheir child lives with. In several states,nchildren of various ages can divorcentheir parents and thus be declaredn”emancipated.” Mr. Weingarten seemsnto think all this is just fine; his onlynconcern is that “each court has a differentnopinion on when a child does andndoesn’t have the same rights accordednadult citizens.”nSchools, once thought to be the sitesnof formal learning, are treated withnparticular contempt. The much-publicizednhorrors of drug-dealing and studentnviolence, both between studentsnand toward teachers and administrators,nsimply do not exist for Mr. Weingarten.nHe deplores the many rules that schoolsnimpose on students: “One of those codesndeclares ‘(everything but teaching) isnsecondary . . . and care must be takennthat even activities which are not . . .nimproper do not so expand that theirndistractions impede (education.)’ InnEnglish, that means if the principalnfinds something—anything—‘distracting,’nwhatever that means, he can stopnnnit.” (The elipses and emphasis belongnto Mr. Weingarten.) To add furtherncredibility to his position, he quotes annattorney: “… they [the school administrators]nalways get things backward.nThey think responsibilities come first,nand then rights.” Don’t they? We alwaysnthought that learning one’s responsibilitiesnenabled one to use his rights inna proper manner.nFinally, in the last segment of hisnfive-part series, Mr. Weingarten getsnaround to noticing parents. He reluctantlyndescribes several areas in whichnthe state has invaded parental authority.nAgain, the only thing that bothers himnabout this trend is that there is no uniformitynto the judicial decisions. .Thisnportion is entitled “Children’s gain notnnecessarily the parents’ loss,” but wencould not find a single sentence thatnwould support such a claim. The endnresult of kid lib will very likely be everybodyn’s loss, especially the kids’. (BK)n”I love being an animal. . .”nIf we now have an America where ansubhuman is hailed as a sociomoralnexemplar, we probably owe it to ournfree, unfettered – by – any – valid – criterionnmedia. It’s a bold assessment, perhapsna sweeping generalization, but the longernwe look at what’s going on, the morenwe feel that the responsibility for ourndisintegration must be laid at the feetnof the insane journalism of the so-calledn”critics,” “reviewers” and “interviewers”nwho poison American newspapers,nand through them the popular mind,nwith rampant imbecility and moral torpor.nHere is how it works.nIn its Sunday “Arts & Books” section,nthe Chicago Tribune, a newspapernwhich is respectable only in its ownneyes, runs a piece furnished by thenKnight-Ridder Newspaper Syndicate.nThe feature is on one Wendy Williams,na punk-rock singer who, in the lingo ofnmodern journalism, could be termed anbehavioral nihilist. A couple of decadesnago she would have been called a sexualn