How many times has this happened to you? You leave work, decide that you need to get groceries on the way home, take a cellphone call and forget all about your plan. Next thing you know, you've driven home and forgotten all about the groceries.

When Americans last year were asked to name the journalist they most admired, showing up at No. 4 on the list was a comedian. Jon Stewart, host of "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central and former master of ceremonies at Academy Award shows, tied in the rankings with anchormen Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and cable host Anderson Cooper1.

Are Americans confused? What is Stewart doing on his program, "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," that might cause people to consider him a journalist? How is the show similar to, and different from, what people get from the mainstream press? Beyond that, who -- and what -- gets skewered by Stewart and company, and who does not?

When you watch MSNBC or CNN in very small doses, like anything, it's a healthy diversion and you may actually learn something. But watching as much as I just have, you realize what an endless, vicious cycle it is, incessantly regurgitating the same drivel to the point where the pundits' "analysis" becomes as recognizable as a midnight Rocky Horror screening.

The phrase “generation gap” came into vogue in the 1960s as a way of describing the wide gulf in values, beliefs and lifestyles that emerged between baby boomers and their parents and grandparents. Indeed, this difference between younger and older people played out sometimes turbulently in the ’60s in virtually all aspects of life, including the ballot box. Unlike in previous elections, from 1968 to 1980 young voters gave much stronger support to Democratic presidential candidates than did their elders.

But by 1984 those baby boomers were not so young and their ideas were not so different. And until very recently, a political generation gap between younger and older voters was not so great.

When students have the opportunity to participate in “Socratic seminars” on a regular basis, a different classroom culture evolves. The students collaborate more and more voices are heard. The students develop their thinking skills in a cooperative and investigative atmosphere. This is shown in a new dissertation in Pedagogy by Ann S Pihlgren at the Stockholm University in Sweden.

The Socratic dialogue is a particular way of developing children’s, as well as adults’, thinking skills through cooperative dialogue where significant human ideas and values are discussed. By participating in Socratic seminars regularly every other week, preschool children and older students develop their thinking skills. The seminars address literature and art work, with questions such as these: is Pippi Longstocking is a good friend, is Jack is stupid or smart when he sells his mother’s cow for some beans or are we born good or evil. In the beginning the students have difficulty expressing their thoughts, but with time their ability to express themselves and to examine ideas critically and logically develops.

This is not an uncommon complaint of university professors. They won’t say it to your face, because they’re generally decent people. That, and damaging your self esteem was recently reclassified as a mortal sin. And they certainly don’t think it about all of you. Maybe not even most of you. But they often think it about some of you, and share their pain with colleagues, friends and non-student acquaintances. We’ve [1] published them saying it before, chapter and verse.

We have become accustomed to hearing that Hitler and Stalin were motivated by atheism. But I think this is the first time I have heard any reputable spokesman (a) say that Hitler and Stalin's dictatorships were ruled by reason, and (b) say that reason leads to terror and oppression.