testing facilities, and factories; as communists,nthey are so moral and honestnthat there’s no reason to allow our inspectorsnto monitor their compliancenwith formal agreements. In other words,nour standards of objectivity and theirsnare so qualitatively different (oursnneferious and vile, theirs impeccably just)nThe Smell of Leftist VenomnConfusion reigns supreme, incoherentngrievances and demands abound,nand they are voiced every day by thenAmerican left with the help of the servilenAmerican media which adoringly highlightnleftist exegetes andprophets. Readyto-wearnpremonitions have reached a pointnof no return. Half of the left-veering scientistsnclaim that in the wake of a thermonuclearnwar life on this planet will expirenbecause extreme cold temperatures willnmake biological survival impossible. Thenother half maintains that industrial pollutionnwill take care of us because thennonstop warming of the atmosphere willneither suffocate us with heat waves or resultnin a deluge caused by the melting ofnpolar icecaps. It seems, therefore, thatwenhave no escape. Yet, a carefiil reading ofnthe left-liberal copy permits us to detectnan innuendo that the ones guilty for thendismal state of the world can be foundnand pinpointed. Once we know them,nthe catastrophe—^in feet, every catastrophe—maynbe successfully avoided.nAnd there’s no need to look fer for themnbecause they are, invariably, the electednofficials of the U.S. government. Consequentiy,nif we are not afi^d to think logically,nthe even larger culprit can be defined:nit is the American public, for wenelected them. Certainly, we may go onenstep further and conclude that the horrendousnAmerican sociopolitical institutions,nA.KA. thesystem, are at the roots ofnthe evil, since they constantly bring intonoffice villains who are abhorred by thenAmerican liberal left.n38inChronicles of CulturenJOl RNAl ISMnthat this problem will remain forever insoluble.nBut Prof. Sagan is uninterestednin the subtleties of epistemology: he’snready to accept the Hottentot ethics ofnthe communists because for him it is ofnlesser gravity than astrophysical calculations.nWe understand him. We do notnthink we could ever agree with him. DnThe New Yorker has emerged as thenshrillest left-liberal modem haruspexnand, at the same time, premier “betternRed than dead” unilateralist organ. Its divorcenfrom reality verges on the grotesque.nFollowing the Grenada episode,nthe assorted limousine radicals that congregatenand nosh in its mid-Manhattanneditorial offices frantically bewailed thenpeople’s-right-to-know principle, whichnthey maintained was brutally raped bynthe Reagan administration, and exhortednthe people/public not to stand for it.nAbout die same time, the ChicagonTribune, after weeks of lamentations onnthesamesubject,openedits”Voiceofthenpeople” section to the public and thennpublished several letters under the headingn”Views on news ban in the invasion ofnGrenada,” all of which ardendy supportednReagan and forcefully articulatednthe message that if the press didn’t like it,nthentohellwithit.Sucharesponsetothenpress’s jeremiads became a pattern innevery major daily in the nation. None ofnthe letters contained an ounce of sympathynfor the clamor voiced by The NewnYorker. We have litde doubt that given annopportunity to gainsay whatever ThenNew For/feer preaches, the people/publicnwould do it with gusto: unfortunately.nThe New Yorker does not print letters tonnnthe editor. Recently, one of its editorialsnreported on a conference attended bynleft-liberal scientific oracles includingnCarl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, and bemoanednan alleged, if not entirely untrue,nindifference of the American media tonthe conference’s message:nNevertheless, the scientists were tellingnus—notforthefirst time, of course,nbut now with more compelling supportingnevidence than ever before—nthat, in their admittedly fellible judgment,nour species is in immediate perilnof extinction in a nuclear holocaustnIt would have made sense for the newsnmedia, in a deliberate break with theirntradition of waiting for things to occurnbefore reporting on them, to treat thenfindings of the conference as thoughnthey had been extinction itself. Undernthis admittedly novel procedure, itnwould have been appropriate if, fornexample, every newspaper in thenworld had turned over its entire frontnpage to headlines announcing the conference’snfindings and if, at the samentime, every television station in thenworld had beamed those findings atnthe public for afiill twenty-four hours.nThe very nature of cant, as it is strenuouslynpromoted by The New Yorker, isnvested in what the magazine impliesnwithout saying. The connotation is thatn”every newspaper in the world” andn”every television station” is enthusiasticnabout the conference’s message, only wenhere, in this country, are not. Exactly thenopposite is true: Professors Sagan’s andnEhrlich’s convictions and speculationsnare available at supermarket countersnand are constandy featured in lowbrown”family” magazines that reach millions ofnreaders. Whereas a Soviet scientist whonwould try to transmit the same messagento the Soviet public would spend the restnof his days studying snow in a Siberianntundra. How The New Yorker envisagesninducing the Soviet leadership and pressnto disseminate Messrs. Sagan’s andnEhrlich’s message is never made clear.nThis lack somehow encapsulates thenvery marrow of conscious or unconsciousndishonesty of all the peace-freeze.n