The point of a real seminar is that the participants correct you. So BUGS includes many things I only know part way or may be mistaken about. I went back to polisci grad school for a semester in 1994, I did well enough, but it was mainly to check out some of the more blatant assertions I make about the Professor-Priesthood.

One thing I discovered was that I had been right when I said that real seminars had died out, but that they had become even deader since I was in school decades before.

As in grammar school, you are assigned a “paper” of so many WORDS. Even an undergrad in the 1960s the idea of telling an UNDERGRADUATE how many WORDS should be in his work would be laughed at as childish.

You did that for assigned writing in Junior High.

In the sixties a professor would routinely present a proposal for an article he was going to submit to his seminar and often also to an advanced regular class. I assume that if you are a doctorate just beginning a concept for a journal article, you would want to submit it at its early stages to a group of engineers in grad school to check it for possible fundamental problems.

Nothing of the kind would even be contemplated in the so-called seminars I went to. They were like freshman high school English, where students would be in a lecture course, but would pick stories in the Reader’s Digest to report on.

You had to get the length of the report right and the teacher knew the article.

This was a unique experience, so I am reporting my basic findings to you. In real academia, i.e., the sciences, an article presents the results of a particular piece of research and other professors repeat the same experiment.

The more radical your conclusions the more likely later repeats will contradict it. But also the more radical your results the more likely they are to go into the media.

When the KGB files were opened up right after the fall of the USSR some professors took a quick look at them and said that Alger Hiss was not mentioned in them as a spy. Our local liberal newspaper had Hiss’s picture on the front page and blared this “news.”

The KGB files are larger than the Library of Congress. Some other readers found Alger Hiss and practically everybody else who was subjected to “McCarthyism” was, in fact, a KGB agent with thousands of pages detailing his activities.

The State Newspaper never mentioned any of that.

This is not an isolated event. Putting a story on the front page is a big decision. If you ask “Why is this information produced?” the answer is simply that it is a big story that, so far as the people who depend on the newspaper for their information, proves what the paper has been saying all along.

Any objections will be buried in the letters to the editors section, assumed to be coming from a biased source, or not at all.

We all know that is how the world works, but no one THINKS about it when it comes to things like the death of Seminars.

Even in the 1960s a professor was subject to some real losses if his article was silly or wrong. So he checked it out with his seminars. Today, if you are on the right side, if you are completely wrong all you have is another published article for your resume.

This is all between you and the editor. No one has ever suffered from being totally discredited by Jensen or other heretics.

I said in an earlier piece that enforcing a bad law rigorously is one way to get rid of it, but I stressed that was true in America. I am open to any contrary evidence, because I don’t LIKE this, but there really doesn’t seem to be any law today’s Europeans won’t support.

Knowing what the World War II Generation did to enslave America, a continent which had TWO such wars may be worse off. WWI barely touched America.

American and British laws were routinely changed by juries. The endless list of small crimes that one could be hanged for in Britain was effectively reversed by juries who would not convict a person who could be hanged for stealing a few shillings.

But today it is hard to imagine a British jury defying a judge in any way. I would be glad to be wrong if someone can give some examples. In America, too, juries consider themselves servants of the court.

The decision in the Crown Versus Pierce, where a judge ruled that in the case of Hate Laws, “the truth is no defense,” was the law under the Alien and Sedition Laws passed after the last huge Federalist Party victory in 1798.

But it was the LAST Federalist Party win because in 1800 the American electorate, not the courts, saved freedom of speech. It was hard to get convictions under that law — in America.

But the idea of a jury in today’s Britain disputing a guy in a black dress strikes me as impossible.

Would America pass the First Amendment today?

No other country on earth has what we call the first amendment.

I have pointed out that “since the invention of the wheel” is supposed to mean in caveman days, but when I point out how rare the wheel is, nobody remembers that phrase. Everyone says it, but nobody THINKS about it.

I have seen editorials reprinted from Australia bragging that they have no Bill of Rights and never will. In fact, all you find in American publications is a few columns like William Buckley’s endorsing European Hate Laws.

The Australian and Canadian reaction to mass shootings, which only happen where no honest person has a weapon, is to pass Draconian guns laws. I have heard of no instance where a jury has refused to convict anybody for trying to defend his family.

But I doubt you will see any of this put together in a few words anywhere but in BUGS.

In several states, including South Carolina, liquor laws were repealed by juries. In fact, while the rest of the state debated the law absolutely banning the per drink sale of anything but beer, Charleston had open bars.

The bars were kept open by juries. For a quarter of a century.

Try to imagine that happening with the cowed juries of today.

America is an island with its Bill of Rights. It is an island under assault.

But no one mentions that.

Mayor Giuliani brought down the crime rate in New York City, an seemingly impossible task, by enforcing the little laws. When bums are allowed to litter they tend to go on to outfight robbery.

Every Jewish comedian criticized this as “fascism.” Even Leno mentioned comedians as part of the liberal complex, so I’m not saying anything wild here.

It did, however, WORK. I would never have imagined it would work so well.

This is also, as the comedians said, a form of profiling. The guy who harasses people or openly throws paper on the street is likely to more serious crimes. They are largely minorities, of course.

In other words niggling enforcement of laws works, not because it is niggling enforcement, but because it is a cover for profiling those who, by the color of their skin, are clearly more likely to be lawbreakers.

But niggling enforcement has an entirely different beneficial effect on law abiding people in America.

In America, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it rigorously. When I came up absolutely everyone who was fashionable was for New York gun control. That ruined Rosie O’Donnell.

I think Zero Tolerance for Weapons has done the new generation a lot of good. Everyone knows about some little kid who was thrown out of school for carrying a plastic knife or something to school.

Gun control is a struggle liberals have lost big time. You know that because they don’t mention it any more. The cops really enforced it because they wanted to be the only high-school graduates who got to walk around with guns.

For people without inferiority complexes, having to carry a weapon is a bother. What really stopped pilots from carrying guns was not he knee jerk reaction to it by liberals. Pilots don’t have the cops’ inferiority complex and they don’t WANT to have to carry a gun.

So they don’t.

That was something most people didn’t THINK about, my continuing theme here. They were arguing over whether a man who had over two hundred lives in his hands should be ALLOWED to carry a gun.

Unlike flying a passenger jet, they said, a gun is a big responsibility.

On TV, the detectives are always taking off their coats and showing guns on them, which makes cops feel Macho. But a pilot has no need of that to get respect in HIS costume.

That’s how human beings think, gang.

If a cop doesn’t have his gun, he usually gets fined. If we want pilots to carry weapons, we will have to pay them to do it. Most lawmakers seemed to think they were “giving” pilots guns, and the pilots would have to take a course to learn how to use them on a plane.

I would guess that if you don’t know the mechanics of planes, training you in the use of guns on a place will be very, very hard. But the lawmakers were so fixated on guns they considered any kind of that magic word police, or Air Marshals, should carry the guns.

Walking in line to board a plane with my shoes off and my pants sagging without the belt, I have mentioned o others around me that the oil countries that sponsor terrorism should have to help pay for this crap.

I point out that if you ask any terrorist one thing he really wants, his answer will include making sure nobody on board is armed. I worked in a prison, and I have yet to find a single prisoner who is not all for gun control.

I have also never found a single prisoner who had the slightest difficulty getting a gun to commit a crime with, in New York or South Carolina. The gun that shot Reagan was bought in Hawaii and used in DC, two places which have gun laws that make that make New York look wimpish.

I have also never had a single passenger disagree with me about how the terrorists should help pay for this nonsense.

In Why None Dare Call It Treason I said I would talk about what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who drew a major portion of their income from siding with the Soviets when the Soviet Empire fell.

This is a practical question, a question anyone who knows anything about real political science would wonder about. But since only Mommy Professors are in political science, they have no idea what makes real politics what they are.

A political science Mommy Professor sees these hundreds of thousands pf Cold Warriors as disappointed idealists. He does not see them as job-seekers.

Until Obama, it was hard to realize how many people’s job resume consisted entirely of “social activist.” I’ve SEEN them. In 1995, when the Democrats lost their majority in Congress and a third of the entire staff on the Hill went to the Republicans it was barely mentioned outside the Beltway.

Another wave of Idealists and Intellectuals hit the streets. Barely five years before, an even greater wave of pro-Soviet Idealists and Intellectuals hit the streets. As the USSR went down every single professional pro-Peace, pro-Soviet, whatever term you want to use, became an Environmentalist.

It is important to realize that intelligent Americans, no matter how anti-American, do have one trait in common: They MAKE their opportunities.

Watch out now, I may be tooting my own horn, but I come from the Belly of the Beast. If you want an easy life in DC, you go to Harvard and join the CIA or the civil service. Totally contrary to popular conception, Capitol Hill is not a place for time-servers.

One man who wrote a popular book called “Workaholics” points out to his New York audience that, contrary to their beliefs, New York was not America’s workaholic center, Washington was. For a New Yorker to take second place in anything “tough” is like a World War II veteran admitting anyone else was in a REAL War.

But I could show up at Capitol Hill offices at 2 a.m. and the place was lit up like a Christmas tree. John Ashbrook caught me in my office at 2 a.m., took one look at me, and said, “Bob, you’ll work better if you’re ALIVE. Get out of here.”

So I have to tell you that the activists on the other side were nothing like what you would think of as Washington bureaucrats. A senior staffer who lost his job at the age of fifty would go out and MAKE himself another one.

This would never occur to anyone as part of the growth of the Environmentalist Movement, the swelling of the militant Anti-Racist Movement.

I was right there, so as the USSR fell I dreaded what would come next from those people who had opposed me in the Cold War.

No political science professor is ever going to think of the tens of thousands of people in the political real world the collapse of a leftist cause brings. A new supply of activists, what he calls Idealists, causes a surge in other movements.

Call it Supply Side Idealism.