sion. Tout comprendre c’est tout pardormernwas obviously the moral foundationnof his nonnegotiable ultimatum, asnif what he had done required not absolutionnbut imprimatur. And perhaps he isneschatologically correct: after all, hengrounded his factitious righteousness innthe reigning Zeitgeist. When Time magazinenputs on its cover one David Bowien—the supreme symbol of plastic, anomicnandrogyny, a trivial deviate whom Timencalls “music’s most exquisite artifect,”nthe high priest of pop AC/DC formulaen—some signals are emitted from thensqualid legislatures of mass-producednconscience in mid-Manhattan: worshipnthe cheerful designer-fashioned depravity—thatnis liicpasspartout to feme cumnglory to strive for. Congressman GerrynStudds, the Democratic deviate, whenndescribing his deeds, spoke of “consentingnadults,” but his “score” was not annadult: he was a 16-year-old boy who admittednto having been awed by the impeccablyndressed, worldly “representativenof the people” in Washington, D.C.n—the mecca of schoolboys who dreamnabout high life in extraordinary placesnand thus believe that their selection tonthe Congressional Page Corps is the mostnsuperb good luck that can happen tonthem. The boy was quoted in the ChicagonTribune saying of his experience: “hen[Studds] provided me with one of thenmore wonderful experiences of my life,nif we exclude the instances of sexual experience,nwhich I was somewhat uncomfortablenwith”—^which proves that henwas a homosexual not by his genes, ornby his conditioning, but by corruption.nSo, rather than with consent, we arendealing here with a banal and neferiousncase of outright seduction, of preying onnyouthful corruptibility and vulnerability.nCongressman Dan Crane, the machonreveler, if compared to Rep. Studds,ncomes across as a boorish grabber fornwhom the honor of representing his districtnand the resulting power is equatednwith the primitive principle of living itnup. Mr. Studds looks like a perverter ofnvalues who must now resort to all thenmendacity and speciousness of modemnrhetoric.nYet there’s a whiflf of the tragic in thisnsordid, subhistorical anecdote aboutnhuman sleaziness. It’s nested in the reactionnof many of Mr. Studds’s constituentsnin coastal Massachusetts. Those fishermennand seamen, rough, hardworkingnpeople, when asked by interviewersnabout their representative’s exploits, assertednalmost unequivocally that he hadnalways defended their economic interestsnwell, and that it is not their businessnto inquire as to what he does in his freentime. None of the newsmen had the witnto ask whether they would send theirnsons to D.C. as Mr. Studds’s pages. ItnTovarich GannettnAs the omniscient insiders in Washington,nD.C. keep repeating these days,nthe Pentagon is against any U.S. interventionnin Central America, chiefly becausenPresident Reagan has failed to convincenthe American people that such a venturenis necessary. That’s exactly Moscow’sndream. Better yet, there are mighty organizationsnin America which are doingneverything they can—wittingly or unwittingly—^tonhelp the Politbureau withnits awesome task of befuddling thenAmerican collective mind to the pointnof suicidal stupor. Among these is thenpowerful chain of provincial tabloids,nGatmett. In its recent treatment of thenissue, Gannett’s outiets featured photomontagesnof idealized portraits of Salvadorannguerrillas juxtaposed with thenVietnam War Memorial—a. journalisticntidbit which certainly made the Sovietnagiqjrop establishment ecstatic. Not longnago, one John Hanchette, a Gannettncomrade from the chain’s news service,nprovided a piece saturated with delightftilndisinformation, all of which was dedicatednto proving how and why Americanneed not and should not defend itselfnagainst the comrnimist encroachment.n.lOl RWLIS.Mnnnseems that it is someone else’s son whondoeai’t really matter very much.nMr. Studds vwll find aid and defense innthe enlightened, tolerant, liberal pressncorps. Already voices are saying that henhas the right to the privacy of his instincts.nNone of tiiose ardent defenders bothers,nin this case, to mention the archtenet ofnyesteryear: if you want a private life,ndon’t run for a public office. They reachnthe apex of liberal hypocrisy when theyninvoke Mr. Studds’s right to be immunenfrom the people’s right to know—^in thenname of which they are perpetuallynready to eviscerate anyone whom theynideologically dislike. DnHis main argimient: American popnand rock singers have afready begun tonperceive the heinousness of our imperialism,nand they will bring down any anticommunistnefforts, just like they didnduring the 60’s. Hanchette announcednwith obvious relish that America’s mostnvaluable contribution to Comintern, thenMarxist crooner Pete Seeger, is afreadynin Nicaragua and ready for actioa He thennrevealed an even more weighty menace:nThere is another political 6ctor presentnthat wasn’t there during the Vietnamnyears. A large swath of Latin Americannculture is burgeoning in the UnitednStates through ‘La Nueva Cancion’n(The New Songs) wluch represent anwhole new genre of political protestnauthored by refugees from Chile,nBolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador andnother troubled countries.nA perceptive reader would notice thatnone Latin American country from whichnwe have quite a lot of refiigees (over anmillion, perhaps, some of whom came inna large batch once called an exodus) isndiscreedy not mentioned. This tactful silence,nof course, implies an untroubledncountry. In keeping with the correctnSoviet propaganda techniques, the absencenof those refugees in Garmett’s re-n••MMH49nOctober 1983n