genious scheme to win without goingninto jungles and dying in booby traps— wenall would have been on their side.nTime’s Ethical PirouettenTime magazine’s attitude toward crimenhas long been recognized as the cutestnjournalistic weathervane in America.nWhen the liberal dogma blossomed innthe ethical mud of the early 70s, Timenwas the first to argue that bestiality couldnbe explained by social conditions and thatnwe should embrace murderers, who arenour brothers in psychoanalysis and shouldnprovide them with rehabilitative facilities.nAt that time, we kept repeating that onenis responsible for one’s deeds, and thatnthe society must defend itself by harshnmeans if it is to remain free and civilized.nToday, most Americans seem to agreenwith us. Therefore, Time recently rannan “essay” entitled “On Crime and MuchnHarder Punishment,” in which one LancenMorrow admitted that, indeed, sincenAmerica’s streets, schools and even hernbarricaded homes have become bloodynbattlefields, perhaps it would be best tonreturn to more severe punishment ofnconvicted criminals. No capital punishmentn(God torhiAl)—Time’s subserviencento the liberal sham wouldn’t allownsuch an iconoclasm—since the electricnchair is not a reliable deterrent (a majoritynof experts claim that it is). “Withinncivilized limits, speed and certainty ofnpunishment represent an approachablenideal,” states Mr Morrow.nTime’s comprehensive methodologynis beautifully laid bare in this “essay.” Itnis a despicable dialectics of human andnpublic affairs. Time admits that thingsnhave been very bad, recently, but if wentry this or that then things will be allnright, fine, perhaps even super Whatn”this or that” is depends on what Timensniffs in people’s moods and attitudes.nOf course, the possibility that Time maynhave contributed to the mess by supportingnideas and issues that made thingsnbad, and which Time now decries in itsn”essays,” matters little to Time. A newntrend is on; let’s embrace it in a way thatnpleases everybody. Time’s listless objec­n22 inChronicles of Culturentivity never clashes with its liberal conscience.nAt this time, retributive justice seemsnto be the best approach to the problem ofncrime in America. The elimination ofnthe principle of retribution from thenjudiciary process has been tearing apartnthe fabric of our society for nearly twondecades. But only now has Time noticednthat our “social contract” is imperiled.nHowever, Time still fails to confess thatnmodern liberalism (Time included) hasnmade this “social contract” meaninglessnby exempting from it the “dispossessed”nand “oppressed.” For years, Time hasnpreached that the bad guys can livenaccording to a morality custom-tailorednby Time magazine. It has always been anfashionable morality, cut to the currentnsocio-psychological fads. So we now haventhe world according to Time. Let’s beginnthe fall season with some new styles inncrime and punishment from Time magazine’snboutique—ethical obligations arenonce again on sale.nA Marxist WunderkindnThe Progressive, a socialist monthly,nbrings to its readers an emotional storynentitled “Reflections: On RepressivenTolerance” by one David Harvey, annEnglish immigrant who came to thisncountry to earn his daily bread, and at anfairly advanced age discovered the revelationnof Marxism. Judging by his “Gee!nWow! ” enthusiasm, one would infer thatnMr. Harvey is the owner of a mind onlynslightly trained in intellectual activities.nHe freely admits that shortly after arrivingnin America:n”… I happened to read Karl Marx.nHe placed great emphasis on the ‘contradictionsnof capitalism,’ and thatncaught my attention. I read on, intrigued.nAnd the more I read, the morenit seemed to make sense . . .”nMr. Harvey finally states that he “hadnnever felt saner in [his] life” and expressesnenormous surprise that other people innAmerica do not share his fervor fornMarxism. Having come to the conclusionnnnthat Marxist faith qualifies one for thenlions, he even frets about his job, butnadds reassuringly, “Fortunately, I obtainedntenure a year before all that happened.”nAt this point, we must bring up thenultimate revelation: in accordance withnhis aptitude for mental efforts, Mr.nHarvey is a professor at Johns HopkinsnUniversity in Baltimore.nAnd Now: Dead Rock!nThe press has brought the news thatnone Mona Claywood Moore, 27, of SannDiego, has undergone cosmetic surgerynon the bottom half of her face to makenher look like the late Janis Joplin. Hernchin and jaws have been reconstructednand implants inserted to make the jobncomplete. She’ll soon have a secondnoperation to fix her nose and cheeks.nArmed with powers of impersonation,nshe will then go on the road to perpetuatenthe message of the ’60s rock subculture.nBehind this “little reconstruction”—asnshe calls it—is a certain Danny O’Day,nrock concert promoter He does not intendnto stop with Joplin; several deceasedngreats of the Amplified Protest Era arenscheduled for the same revival. ThenAmerican culture will be everlastinglynindebted to Mr. O’Day’s unintentionalnsense of the sardonic, though, we suspect,nany attempt to explain to him what sarcasmnmeans would be futile.nDouglas MacArthur’s DeficiencynWith the publication of AmericannCaesar, by William Manchester, the timenhas come for General MacArthur to bendissected by the “responsible” and “conscientious”ncritics of our day. The tonenof the inquiry seems to have been set byna certain Merle Miller in Book World:n”MacArthur was a brilliant man,nthough his knowledge of much beyondnthe military sciences was negligible.nOne would hesitate to have engagednhim in a discussion of philosophy,nliterature, medieval or renaissancenhistory, or the restoration comedy.” Dn