refused to meet Mr. Solzhenitsyn, butnhobnobbed with Andy Warhol and MicknJagger’s wife—eminent representativesnof Manhattan’s jet-set dregs. Thisnplayed a role in his rejection by thenAmerican people. Tolerance, even thenliberal insouciance of companionship,nis one thing, but chumminess withncanaille is another. One may discussnworldviews with a communist in Russia,nbut one does not fraternize with thenGulag henchmen. The High Timesncrowd, to even the most unprejudicednmind, are counterculture’s poisonersnand executioners. We hope GovernornBrown will learn it when his day ofnreckoning arrives.nMcGovernitisn”Seven years later, his ideas haventaken root,” announces the ChicagonTribune in an adulatory article, provingnthat the American press has not yetnrecovered from the disease. And the articlenadmiringly admits that the Carternadministration is replete with “undersecretariesnand assistants to deputiesnand administration aides who learnedntheir politics at McGovern’s feet.”nIndeed, it is. The State Departmentnis infested with them, so are countlessnagencies and the White House itself.nTheir impact on the American politicalnreality, at home and abroad, is nefarious.nTo make it clear, let’s re-examine whatnthose worthy engineers of Americannpolicies have learned at McGovern’snfeet, and what Carter has enabled themnto put into operation.nSenator McGovern certainly does notnwant communism for America, but hensincerely considers it an honorablenideological enterprise elsewhere. Hendeems oppression and penury fornCubans, Poles and Vietnamese an acceptable,neven worthy, proposition—nas, he thinks, it departs from a soundnpremise and its totalitarian excessesnare just mistakes and aberrations of anmorally valuable doctrine. He alsonthinks that it is America who is to blamenfor the lack of universal harmony, andnS8inChronicles of Culturenit is enough to disarm ourselves andngive to the Russians and Chinese whatevernthey want to achieve a just andnequitable peace among nations. Thus, innChile he would rather see AUende thannPinochet, even if the latter, his “mistakes”nnotwithstanding, has more backingnby Chileans than the former, andnhas markedly improved the conditionsnof the country. He would prefer a communistnRhodesia to the one that nownseems to be emerging, visibly characterizednby the first successful, interracialncooperation in all of Africa—andnthose at the State Department, whononce sat at his feet, do all they can tonsatisfy the Master’s feelings and bringnabout a communist victory. And, ofncourse, before that they made his heartnrejoice by giving Angola, Afghanistannand Laos to those politically honest visionariesnwho Mr. McGovern trusts andnrespects.nIn home policies, the Senator passionatelynaffirms his sentiments for thenpoor and the needy, a commendable inclination,nbut one that arouses somensuspicions. We suspect that he is morenardently in love with his own sociopoliticalnstance on poverty than with anpractical program for help. We are allnfor making this nation better off andneradicating misery and want—we justndo not think that the solutions offerednby the Senator’s conscience would donany good. After all, they have beenncontinuously applied to the Americannsociety since the Kennedy era and theyndo not appear to be succeeding. Thenmonument of decency from South Dakotanis branding our objection as greed,ncallousness, exploitation, etc. However,nthose who now implement “his ideas”nvia the Carter administration, have succeedednin bringing about the collapsenof the dollar and anarchic inflation.nCarter’s disjointed duplicity has givennthem more power than even their idol’snvictory in 1972 would have. But that’snanother story, or area of investigationninto which the Chicago Tribune, faithfulnto its liberal proclivities, wouldnnever venture. DnnnJournalismnChicago Tribune’snParochialismnWhat’s a critic.^’nIt’s — among others — a ChicagonTribune newspaperperson who reportsnon what new jazz albums have beennreleased (she is a jazz “critic”), the costnof a ticket to a rock concert (she is a popnor rock “critic”), or the yearly sales ofnrecord companies and whether taxicabsnshould stop in front of discos (henis a night-life “critic,” a bizarre occupationnwhich should by no means benconfused with your friendly SalvationnArmy preacher, excoriating the bigncity vices).nWhy does the Chicago Tribune usenthis pompous denomination for a journalisticnhack.^ Why are simple, routine,nreportorial texts christened criticism.^nMost likely, to look more serious andnsophisticated in the eyes of unseriousnand unrefined consumers. The ChicagonTribune also has a restaurant, or foodn”critic”—and here’s where the real burlesquenof meanings and notions begins.nCriticism is an intellectual disciplinenfor judging according to a criterion—nthat is, an objectively established measurenof value. It involves standards andnrules of rational, moral and social nature,nand it turns into art when subjectivenvariables and imponderables becomenindispensable for the act of judgment.nNominally, it can be argued thatna food critic may exist; however, taste,nor the preference of the palate, is suchna subjective, even lyrical, part of humannessnthat the opinion of someone whonis hired by a newspaper to elaborate onnthe aroma of broccoli sounds like annimbecilic joke. An art critic who defendsnPicasso against ignorant dislikesncan always resort to objectively, socially,nor even scholarly, verifiable arguments.nFood “critics” write meticulouslynthat the asparagus is deliciously soggy,nor the kebab is grilled to perfection, ornthe Chateaubriand has a metallic flavorn