audience’s response to such crudenschlock.nThe movie is immensely popular withnteenagers who seem in the throes of nostalgianfor the ’50s. They mob movienhouses and appear to be uproariouslynamused by the contraceptive mishap. Anynmention of crotch or menstruation isngreeted with joy and a burst of applause.nAt the same time, however, every hint atncorniness, as it is remembered from thatninnocent, or rather sanitized era, is receivednwith sighs and an eager empathy.nIt is a puzzling ambiguity. Sensing thenmood in the darkness of a show one getsnan impression of the symbolic quandarynof the American popular culture. BynJournalismnNew York T/Vwej” CommandmentnWe may call it the “Ten and a Halfth”ncommandment, for the New York Timesnhas spoken and the native liberal consciencesnacross the land have been awestrucknby the bedazzling, mind-disarmingnsagacity of its words. What did the veneratednrepository of liberal gout speaknout about.’ It spake about censorship.nThe lead editorial was entitled “A Bitnof Censorship,” and it went about establishingnthat such a thing is impossiblenand unthinkable. To prove it, NYT setsnauthority (apparently any authority—nmoral, civic, political, communal, intellectual,netc.) against the freedom ofnspeech as two irreconcilable absolutes.nTo facilitate this bit of philosophicalnacrobatics, the editorial’s conceptualistn(or team of them) shrewdly and spuriouslynequates “orthodoxy” with “authority,”nblurring the difference betweennthese two distinct notions and accusingnall those who object to the deluge ofncultural-permissive obtuseness of “orthodoxy.”nNYT pontificates:n”Orthodoxy carries its own imperative:nsomeone must define it. What distin­nsuccessfully invading it through the lastn15 years, the Liberal Culture has accomplishedna bizarre reversal of gospels. Thenlack of inhibition in word and deed,nwhatever its motivation, is the king ofntoday’s cultural ambiences, but a subcutaneousnimpulse to some innocence—nwhatever it means, or may mean, in then’70s—coexists with the most repulsiventrivialities.nMovies like Grease somehow help usnto realize that stripping human conductnof all conventions is more of a brutalnoppression than all the ancient lies aboutnstorks and ideal love among teenagers.nSuch movies may ultimately performnsome socially valuable function. Dnguishes democrats is that they have nonsuch someone. So they must suppressnthe occasional, and understandable,ntemptation to define what is orthodox.nNazis must be left to march not becausenthey are acceptable but because we trustnno one with the definition of what is.nA burst of dirty words on a radio broadcastnshould not be the cause of governmentncensure because no singlenauthority can be trusted to label ideasnas indecent.”nSuch obvious falsifications of factualitynnotwithstanding (we already know whatnNazism is; there is a fundamental differencenbetween dirty words and indecentnideas), we are then asked to accept thenmendacious and self-serving, allegedlyndemocratic “truth” that authority, onenof the cornerstones of civilization, is andirty word itself because it could imposenon the Times and the media certain rulesnof conduct. What’s wrong with the authoritynof Moses’ faith, Christ’s teachings,nPlato’s wisdom, Aristotle’s knowledgenthe Times won’t elucidate. However,nnnwhenever the New York Times’ journalisticnauthority of information and judgmentnis called into question, the criticsnare immediately and hatefully persecutednas imperial presidents, bigoted authoritarians,netc.nThe Times’ quest for absolute powernand absolute license is coupled in theneditorial with a matter-of-fact hypocrisy.nNYT censures the Supreme Court fornsearching “for reasonable definitions”:nsuch is a futile occupation, according tonNYT. However, the Times knows withoutna shred of hesitation what then”ultimate values of our society” are—andnone, NFT asserts, is the reasonablenessnof the freedom of the press’ taboo.nIt is easy and bathetically noble tondemand an absolute liberty, call it rationality,nand not bother with daily realitiesnand their consequences. Ultimately, suchna stance is nothing but an immensendistrust of and contempt for the humannmind: NYT automatically assumes thatnmen do not have the faculty to distinguishnbetween bad and good, better or worse,nand thus cannot make decisions thatnaffect public consensus or disagreementnin keeping with empiricism, circumstancenand good sense. Any Americannhas the right to be unsympathetic tonorthodoxy of thought and principle, butntelling Americans that orthodoxy is thensame as authority, and superciliouslynclaiming that we would be unable to tellnone from another, is a peculiar arrogancenthat stems from an arbitrary power—napparently the Times’ most cherishednand flaunted status.nNone of the First Amendment absolutistsncould ever explain how an administrativenaction against Larry Flynt’s culturalnpus would curtail the political,nsocial, religious, literary, or artistic freedomnof expression—but the apocalypticnhalf-truths and hackneyed slogans aboutnthe “indivisibility” of freedom never leavenNYT’s editorial pages. However,freedomnis divisible—there exists a better and anworse freedom, and man is equipped withntools of cognition to constantly evaluatenand re-evaluate freedom’s contents. And,nabove all, freedom is man’s constructnand therefore cannot be absolutized, andnChronicles of Cultoren