schools and in the Department of Education,rnand the feminist slant on validrnknowledge having effected the presentrnunsatisfactory standards of K-12 math educationrn—I see other historical threadsrnleading to the present situation. Mathematiciansrnhave always been unhappy atrnthe public lack of understanding of anyrnbut the most basic mathematics. Itrnseems to us that insight into the reasoningrnby which mathematical truths havernbeen developed would help the worldrnwalk a litde straighter. Thus in the era ofrn”The New Math” (1955-72) we used ourrntemporary influence to cause the creationrnand over-advertising of curricularnthat would accomplish this feat. As itrnturned out, the curriculum itself wasrnflawed by lack of understanding of how itrnwould play out when it got into therntrenches; the result was a disaster. It wasrna convenient excuse for those hellbentrnon downgrading algorithms and memorization,rnand it ended up blamed forrnmuch that was not in it.rnThe reaction, dubbed “Back to Basics,”rnkicked off by the National Instituternof Education, was similarly criticized.rnThe results were worse than the NewrnMatii.rnThe current vision of the NationalrnCoimcil of Teachers of Mathematicsrn(NCTM), as expressed (oh, so badly) inrnthe 1989 Standards, is a reaction to thern”Back to Basics” reaction, and I believe itrnwould have taken place in the total absencernof feminism. Many of the writersrnof the new standards were themselves intimatelyrninvolved, though as quite youngrnmen, in the New Math, and saw its failure.rnThe lesson they took from that failurernwas narrow: they are not repeatingrnquite the same things for which the NewrnMath was publicly damned. Still, somernform of “understanding” is attempted, tornthe detriment, down in the trenches, ofrndrill, memory, facts, and standard procedures.rnThere is one significant difference betweenrnthe New Math revolution and thernNew New Math one: the mathematiciansrnare not in the game this time, havingrngiven up the field to educators, i.e.,rnprofessors of math education in the collegesrnthat prepare K-12 teachers, theirrnmentors in education research, and thernofficialdom of the teaching profession inrntiie NEA, NCTM, and the state educationrndepartments.rn—Ralph A. RaimirnDepartment of MathematicsrnUniversity of RochesterrnRochester, NYrnT H E UNITED NATIONS has generatedrnmore debate on Capitol Hill in recentrnmonths than at any time since itsrnbirth 52 years ago. Several factors accountrnfor this recent strain in relations,rnincluding the end of the Cold War andrnincreased scrutiny by a Republican-controlledrnCongress. However, the excessesrnand missteps of the United Nations itselfrnhave been the greatest contiibutors to thernpresent crisis in U.S.-U.N. relations.rnThe United Nations was establishedrnin 1945 to maintain global peace and security;rnachieve international cooperationrnin solving economic, social, cultural,rnand humanitarian problems; and promoternhuman rights. Despite the idealisticrnnature of such goals, the UnitedrnStates can justify its membership in thernworld body only if it advances America’srnnational interests and foreign policy objectives.rnThe decisions and actions of the greatrnpowers of the world have the most impactrnon global events. During the last 50rnyears, the United States has acted unilaterallyrnor in concert with its allies tornachieve its foreign policy goals—involvingrnthe U.N. has been little more than anrnafterthought. Despite this fact, there remainrnbenefits to U.S. membership in thernU.N. The U.N. provides a forum for fliernU.S. to communicate with both itsrnfriends and foes. As the Gulf Warrndemonstiated, the U.N. can be used tornbuild international coalitions to achievernCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnU.S. foreign policy objectives. Membershiprnin the United Nations also helpsrnpromote America’s leadership role in internationalrnpolitics. Finally, there are arnfew specialized U.N. agencies that performrninvaluable services for the memberrnstates. They include the InternationalrnCivil Aviation Organization, whichrnhelps set standards for international airrntraffic, and the International PostalrnUnion and International TelecommunicationsrnUnion, which help coordinaternand set standards for intercountry communications.rnDespite these specific and limitedrnbenefits of membership, far too manyrnproblems remain. The U.N. system is arnmassive, overlapping bureaucracy of 70-rnplus agencies and programs with a bloatedrnstaff of 50,000. Hundreds of U.N.rnagencies, departments, and ofi^ices arerndedicated to agricultiiral policies alone!rnEven Secretary of State Madeleine Albrightrnhas called the U.N. bureaucracyrn”elephantine.” The general administiativernbudget alone has grown from $20rnmillion in 1945 to $10 billion today.rnMost of these agencies and programsrnperform work of little or no value. Thernlarge and expensive International Conferencernon Population and Developmentrnin Cairo and the U.N. Conferencernon the Environment and Developmentrnin Rio did little to solve the problemsrnthey were ostensibly addressing. Onernwould be hard-pressed to argue that thernUnited Nations Development Programmernhas achieved its stated goal ofrn”contiib[uting] to the sustainable expansionrnof the world economy,” or that thernUnited Nations Industiial DevelopmentrnOrganization has done much to furtherrnglobal industrial development. The bottomrnline is the United Nations spendsrnmost of its budget on salaries and expenses,rnnot on achieving its idealistic goals.rnWhy should the United States governmentrncontinue to spend Americans’rnhard-earned tax dollars to fund suchrnwasteful practices?rnIn addition to its fiscal irresponsibility,rnthe U.N. has attempted to reach far beyondrnits limits and capabilities, while encroachingrnon U.S. sovereignty. Underrnthe guidance of former Secretary GeneralrnBoutros-Ghali, U.N. peacekeepingrnunderwent a dramatic transformation.rnThe traditional peacekeeping operationrn—lightiy armed troops overseeing anrnexisting peace settiement-was replacedrnby military operations in which heavilyrnarmed soldiers attempted to force peacernonto unwilling participants. Somaliarnand Bosnia demonstrated the futility andrncostliness of such ambitious, nationbuildingrnexercises. In Somalia, severalrnAmerican soldiers lost their lives becausernof limitations placed on U.S. commandersrnby the U.N. operation.rnIn ways far less glaring than the tiagicrnSomalia operation, the United Nationsrncontinues to encroach on American na-rn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn