Remember the theme song of Mr. Ed -- the TV comedy about the talking horse? "Go right to the source, and ask the horse ..."

Sometimes, "go right to the source" can be good advice for speechwriters. If we go to the source of a cliche or a familiar quotation, we can sometimes breathe new life into it.

Recently, I wrote a speech for a software company executive to deliver at a conference in London. I wanted to open with Dr. Samuel Johnson's famous saying, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life," but I was afraid it might sound hackneyed. So I went to the source and found the full version and context of Johnson's remark.

When I had that, I was able to give the familiar quote a new twist in the opening of the speech:

"Dr. Samuel Johnson once famously remarked that when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life. At least, that is the popular version of what he said.

"On this occasion, I’m going to dust off James Boswell’s monumental biography of the great man and give you the complete version of Johnson’s remark. He said:

"'Sir, you find no man, at all intellectual, who is willing to leave London. No, Sir, when a man is tired of London, he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford.' [emphasis added].

"In other words, when Johnson talked about the endless variety of London’s attractions, he was thinking first about the intellectual stimulation that the city offered – and still offers today.

"We intend to add to that intellectual stimulation through this conference."

In this case, going right to the source made for a better opening.

A couple of weeks back, I commended Sen. John McCain for delivering the commencement address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virginia without pandering, without compromising his principles and without behaving like the medieval German emperor who waited barefoot in the snow at Canossa in penance for having offended the Pope.

In his radio message on Saturday, endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, President Bush did the opposite. To secure the support of the religious right for Republican candidates this fall, he delivered what was perhaps the most abject, the most craven and the most disingenuous public statement by a chief executive since Bill Clinton lied with a straight face about his relations with Monica Lewinsky.

The President said this: “Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.”

Anyone not familiar with the FMA might assume from what Mr. Bush said that the amendment does nothing more than define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and leaves the states free to “make their own choices” regarding gay unions and domestic partner benefits.

But in fact the FMA has two parts. First, it says, “Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” And then it goes on to say, in the second part, “Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

What, exactly, does the second part mean? If part one of the amendment says that marriage in the U.S. shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman, why is this additional language necessary to accomplish the goal of the amendment?

Nobody really knows at this point. But if the FMA is ratified, it will open -- not a Pandora’s box -- but a veritable steamer trunk full of thorny constitutional questions.

If the FMA were ratified, any state law permitting gays and lesbians to enter into civil unions could be challenged by fundamentalist groups as being invalid under the constitution of that state. The same would apply to state and local laws conferring domestic partner benefits on gay and lesbian public employees.

What then? The second part of the FMA says that no state constitution may be construed to require that the “legal incidents” of marriage be conferred upon non-traditional couples. Does this mean that state courts could not construe their state constitutions to uphold laws permitting civil unions or domestic partner benefits for gays and lesbians? Does it mean that such laws would be presumptively unconstitutional? The amendment doesn’t say.

If state courts did uphold such laws, would the FMA allow opponents of any form of non-heterosexual union to appeal such rulings to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Or suppose that the people of a state amended their constitution to permit gays and lesbians to marry? Would the FMA allow the people who lost the battle over the state amendment to appeal the U.S. Supreme Court to keep the amendment from being put into effect?

At the very least, ratification of the FMA would give rise to endless wrangling over what state legislatures could do to allow non-heterosexual couples to formalize their unions. They would hardly be “free to make their own choices.”

The FMA would deprive the states of their power to regulate marriage – a power they have had since the dawn of the republic – and it would limit the power of state supreme courts to construe their own state constitutions. There was a time when conservatives would have been the first to denounce a federal power grab of this sort.

Mr. Bush ended his radio address with a masterpiece of mendacity:

“Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

“In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.”

But the FMA is itself a gross indecency – exceeded only by Mr. Bush’s spineless endorsement of it.

I am sometimes asked why commencement speeches are usually terrible.

While there’s no single answer, I think the main reason is that the speakers so often act as if the occasion were all about them instead of about the graduates.

I’ve found that the best commencement speeches are those in which the speaker draws deeply on his or her own life experience to pass on a useful lesson or two to the young people trembling on the threshold of life – something that will be of real help them as they start their own careers.

Steve Jobs’ speech at Stanford last spring was marvelous in this respect, which is why it drew so many favorable reviews. Stephen Colbert’s speech at Knox College just a few days ago was in the same league.

Colbert is a comedian and satirist, who is perhaps best known for his roast of President Bush at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner at the end of April.

After delivering the liberal dose of humor that audiences expect when they invite a funnyman to be their speaker, Colbert gave the graduates a piece of advice that was both practical and profound -- he told them to say “yes” to life:

Say “yes.” In fact, say “yes” as often as you can. When I was starting out in Chicago, doing improvisational theatre with Second City and other places, there was really only one rule I was taught about improv. That was, “yes-and.” In this case, “yes-and” is a verb. To “yes-and.” I yes-and, you yes-and, he, she or it yes-ands. And yes-anding means that when you go onstage to improvise a scene with no script, you have no idea what’s going to happen, maybe with someone you’ve never met before. To build a scene, you have to accept. To build anything onstage, you have to accept what the other improviser initiates on stage ... You have to keep your eyes open when you do this. You have to be aware of what the other performer is offering you, so that you can agree and add to it. And through these agreements, you can improvise a scene or a one-act play. And because, by following each other’s lead, neither of you are really in control. It’s more of a mutual discovery than a solo adventure. What happens in a scene is often as much a surprise to you as it is to the audience.

Now will saying “yes” get you in trouble at times? Will saying “yes” lead you to doing some foolish things? Yes it will. But don’t be afraid to be a fool. Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes.”

And that’s The Word.

Link: http://www.knox.edu/colbert.xml

Rep. Tom DeLay bade a defiant farewell to the House of Representatives last week, declaring, “I exit, as always, stage right.”

But does he?

In his farewell address, DeLay castigated liberals for seeking “more.” By which he meant “more government, more taxation, more control over people’s lives and decisions and wallets.”

But if that is what liberalism is all about, what is “conservative” about the policies of Mr. Delay and the current Republican regime in Washington?

We’re talking, after all, about a partnership between the legislative and executive branches of government that has, over just the last few years, presided over the biggest increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon Johnson – even if one excludes spending on defense and homeland security.

Furthermore, according to a report issued last year by the Cato Institute, we’re also talking about an inflation-adjusted increase of 27 percent in the combined budgets of the 101 largest government programs that Republicans vowed to eliminate in 1995.

Could liberals have done a better job of increasing the size of government?

For that matter, could liberals have done more to increase government control over people’s “lives, decisions and wallets” than this regime has done since 9/11 in the name of national security?

National security aside, we’ve seen such federal intrusions in people’s lives as the Bush Justice Department attempting to use federal drug laws to thwart Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which allows terminally ill patients to opt for physician-assisted suicide. We’ve also seen the Bush administration actively promoting an amendment to the constitution that would deny gays and lesbians the right to marry – the first constitutional amendment since Prohibition that would limit rather than expand individuals’ rights.

We’ve seen, in short, the same kind of federal meddling, bullying and nannyism that used to be regarded as the hallmark of big-government liberalism.

Granted, Republicans have cut taxes rather than increased them, but by their reckless spending they have created a mountain of debt that will eventually have to be paid off – most likely through higher taxes.

If this is “conservatism,” then I’m Rosa Luxemburg.

Steve Crescenzo wrote in The Ragan Report last month about a health care communicator who was not permitted to say anything negative in her publication. “I’m not even allowed to write that anyone died,” she sputtered helplessly. “I can’t use the words ‘died’, ‘dying’ or ‘death.’ If a patient dies, I have to say that he or she ‘failed to thrive.’”

Steve then mischievously offered up a series of other possible feel-good euphemisms that might be employed when writing about certain unpleasant hospital procedures – none of which I feel safe repeating here. So I’ll stick with “failed to thrive.”

Whenever I read a weasel expression like that, I think of George Orwell’s classic essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

Writing over 60 years ago, Orwell declared: “Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.”

But we can do something about it, said Orwell. From time to time, if we jeer loudly enough, we can send some lump of verbal refuse like “failed to thrive” to the junk heap, where it belongs.

He was right.

In addition to Steve Crescenzo’s stalwart effort in The Ragan Report, we can take heart from the example of Winston Churchill

As leader of the opposition after World War II, Churchill was frequently exasperated by the bureaucratic jargon employed by the new socialist regime.

He bit his tongue when the poor were referred to as “the lower income disadvantaged,” but when houses and homes were dubbed “local accommodation units”, he lost all patience.

"Accommodation unit, sweet accommodation unit. What rubbish,” he declared – and buried the offending euphemism on the spot.

As regular readers of this blog are well aware by now, I regard myself as a conservative who who has deep philosophical differences with the current regime in Washington.

But what is "conservative"? Political labels are often meaningless unless they are defined.

Space considerations -- and the patience of my readers -- do not permit me to expound at length on my own political philosophy, but I think it might be instructive to offer some brief quotations on the subject that reflect my point of view.

Here are three -- all taken, appropriately enough, from speeches.

"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?"

-- Abraham Lincoln, Cooper Union Speech, 1860

"In a progressive country, change is constant; and the great question is, not whether you should resist change which is inevitable, but whether change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, the traditions of the people, or in deference to abstract principles and arbitrary and general doctrines."

-- Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in Edinburgh, 1867

"I favor the policy of economy, not because I wish to save money, but because I wish to save people. The men and women of this country who toil are the ones who bear the cost of government. Every dollar that we carelessly waste means that their life will be so much the more meager. Every dollar that we prudently save means that their life will be so much the more abundant. Economy is idealism in its most practical form."

-- Calvin Coolidge, Inaugural Address, 1925

I may offer a few more of my favorite quotes on the subject in a later posting.

If you’re reading this blog, I think I can safely assume that you enjoy reading in general. So, from time to time, I may recommend a book just for the fun of it, regardless of whether or not it has any connection with speechwriting.

Today, I am recommending a recently-published novel, Arthur & George, by English writer Julian Barnes (Alfred A. Knopf, 400 pages, $24.95).

The “Arthur” of the title is Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes. “George” is one George Edalji, a young, half-Indian solicitor who is the victim of race prejudice when is he wrongfully convicted of mutilating some livestock. The novel describes how the lives of these two very different men intersect when Arthur takes up the cause of clearing George’s name. (This incident was successfully dramatized several decades ago as part of a PBS series called, “The Edwardians.”)

Arthur & George is a novel for thinking people who enjoy elegant writing. Barnes illuminates many little-known aspects of Conan Doyle’s career, such as his service as a medical officer during the Boer War, his zest for skiing and cricket, his platonic affair with a much younger woman and his increasing absorption in spiritualism.

Savor the scene at Buckingham Palace, where Edward VII has just conferred his first batch of knighthoods. The newly-dubbed writer, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, discusses spiritualism with the newly-dubbed scientist, Sir Oliver Lodge. (Lodge has created a stir by retiring from the presidency of the Physical Society to become president of the Psychical Society.)

“You know what they say, Doyle, the scoffers? They say: from the study of protoplasm to the study of ectoplasm. And I reply: then remember all those who did not believe in protoplasm at the time.”

“We may soon be able to prove,” continues Lodge with a collusive twinkle, “that it is not just Mr. Sherlock Holmes who is able to escape evident and apparent death.”

This is a marvelous book if you want something a little more stimulating than the usual light summer fare

All the lonely people
Where do they all come from?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong?

-- The Beatles

Studies published by the American Sociological Review are not normally grist for the front pages of American newspapers. But last week, one such study made headlines.

The study in question documented the increasing loneliness and isolation of contemporary Americans.

According to the study, social isolation has increased dramatically over the last 20 years. A quarter of today’s Americans say that they have no one with whom they can discuss their personal problems, more than double those who felt that way in 1985. The average American’s circle of intimates has dropped from three to two – usually a spouse and close friend or relative. Rarely is it a neighbor.

With this trend has come the increasing risk that individual Americans will find themselves with no one to turn to in time of trouble. One of the sociologists who conducted the study pointed to the people who ended up on the rooftops after Hurricane Katrina hit because they didn’t know someone who had a car.

Critics of the study argue that it should have taken account of the social connections that people make through the internet, although the authors of the study claim that people rarely share their innermost thoughts in chat rooms.

Opinion was also divided over what has caused this growing isolation. The list of suspects included longer working hours, longer commutes, and the lure of the TV.

But perhaps America’s loss of community was foreordained by the very nature of American dream. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is, arguably, a formula for individual success and satisfaction, rather than for collective well-being and strong social networks.

As early as the 1830s, that perceptive French visitor, Alexis de Tocqueville, could discern that there was a dark side to American individualism. He wrote:

As social conditions become more equal, the number of persons increases who, although they are neither rich nor powerful enough to exercise any great influence over their fellows, have nevertheless acquired or retained sufficient education and fortune to satisfy their own wants. They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands.

Thus not only does democracy make every man forget his ancestors, but it hides his descendants and separates his contemporaries from him; it throws him back forever upon himself alone and threatens in the end to confine him entirely within the solitude of his own heart.

Is there a lesson here for speechwriters? I think so. I think it might be useful for us to remember that there are a lot of lonely people in the audiences who will hear the speeches we write. If the circumstances permit us to add a word of consolation in our texts, it might be appreciated by those lonely listeners, and might contribute to the overall success of the speech.

Ah, look at all the lonely people!

The proposed constitutional amendment against burning the American flag came uncomfortably close to passing the Senate yesterday. The vote of 66 to 34 in favor fell just one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to approve the amendment and send it to the states for ratification.

I’m not in the habit of reprinting my blog postings, but I’m going to reprint the one I posted last year on this subject. Not for anything I said, but for the unanswerable argument that a former POW and authentic American hero made against the flag-burning amendment.

If there’s anyone out there who can still favor a flag-burning amendment after reading James Warner’s case against it, I’d like to hear from him.

Here is last year’s posting:

There is no question that desecrating the flag enflames the passions of patriotic Americans. But at the same time, the best argument I ever read against the flag-burning amendment was made by an American whose patriotism was unimpeachable, and who knew, better than anyone else, why such an amendment would be a mistake.

His name was James H. Warner. He was a Marine fighter pilot during the Vietnam War, who spent five and a half hellish years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. During that time he was starved, tortured, kept in solitary confinement for 13 consecutive months, and wracked with diseases and internal parasites brought on by his mistreatment.

In an all-out effort to break his will, one of his interrogators showed him a photograph of anti-war demonstrators in the U.S. burning the American flag. "There!" the North Vietnamese officer gloated. "People in your country protest against your cause. That proves that you are wrong."

"No," Warner replied. "That proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us."

I'll let Mr. Warner tell what happened next: "The officer was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist onto the table and told me to shut up. While he was ranting, I was surprised to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him."

James Warner told this story in an op/ed he wrote for the Washington Post in July of 1989, after the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected as free speech under the Bill of Rights. It was that decision that launched the campaign for a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. Warner's argument against the amendment is as compelling now as the day he wrote it: "We don't need the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Don't be afraid of freedom, it is the best weapon we have."

Amen to that.