This is chutzpah. Ms. Baez paid nothingnfor what she did. During the war,nMs. Baez was a fierce supporter of communistnaggression, sang in tune withnHanoi and rendered it invaluable services.nFor opposing and sabotaging thenAmerican war effort she became annAmerican millionaire. Her songs, expressingnproletarian and pro-communistnmessages, acquired her chic apparel andnluxury cars.nOne wonders what the Baezes, Chomskys,nSontags, Haydens and Fondas feelnwhen they see on TV these days (yes,nthe same American TV that did everythingnpossible to psychically disarmnAmerica during the war) the recentntragedy of the Great Vietnamese Leapninto the ocean. Countless decrepit littlenboats, with SOS signs on the spread-outnbedsheets, desperately cruise the ChinanSea in hopes of being picked up by passingnships. They are crammed with refugeesnescaping the communist rulers whomnthe Chomskys, Baezes, etc. so valiantlynhelped to victory. CBS recently showednsuch a contingent of exhausted, despondentnpeople who were rescued by a vessel,nthe captain of which was quite disturbednby what to do with his own compassion—nas no country, except Israel, is willing tonextend unlimited hospitality to the victimsnof Marxist tyranny. They did notnlook like tools of American imperialism,nwar profiteers or fascist henchmen—thatnis, that sort of people the Chomskys,nBaezes, and Sontags claimed were U.S.nallies in Vietnam. They looked like mi.serablenfarmers and laborers, whom ournsoldiers—most often called psychoticnkillers by the Haydens and Fondas—.oncentried to defend from communist oppression.nOne of them, with the harrowednface of an Oriental peasant, told the CBSncorrespondent in barely understandablenEnglish: “Better death in the ocean thanncommunism . . .” Confronting this, onencan’t help feeling that even the purestnintentions of the protest movementnharbored some disgraceful misjudgments.nPresented today as yesterday’snvirtue, it is nothing more than despicablenchutzpah.nS8inChronicles of CulturenNew York ChutzpahnNew Times, a radic-lib-culturalncanard, published a comparative chartnwhich is meant to prove that Mr. AndrewnYoung was correct when accusingnAmerica of detaining political prisonersnwhile claiming their nonexistence. NewnTimes did it by juxtaposing the Shcharanskyncase with the Truong case, innwhich a communist Vietnamese spy bynthe name of David Truong was caughtnred-handed by U.S. authorities whilencollecting classified and secret documentsnto transport out of the country.nThe fact that Shcharansky never didnanything remotely similar, and his “guilt”nconsisted of talking to foreigners—a sinnin communism, but by far not legal proofnof spying—matters little to the expertsnon unbiased justice from the NewnTimes,nNeither do they seem to be botherednby the circumstance that they are objectivelynserving the Soviet raison d’etat innthe ongoing socio-cultural debate onnhuman and civil rights. Whether NewnTimes does this because of its overpoweringnlove for journalistic “truth” orndoes it for commerical-sensationalistnreasons, or just because of its lib-radicalnpro-communism—will remain forevernunclear, and actually, is of little importance.nAmerican democracy will survivenit. However, there’s a little hitch in thenNew TVOTej-‘argumentation. It does notndeny that Truong tampered with confidentialndocuments, a strictly punishablenmisdeed in every society and state, whichnShcharansky did not. What New Timesnwants, claims and demands is a voice inndetermining which government documentsnare confidential, what is punishable,nand how much punishment shouldnbe meted out to someone who acts onnbehalf of America’s enemies. Once NewnTimes establishes this kind of innovativenjudiciary process, there won’t be anyndifficulty sending Nixon to the gallowsnand Truong to Harvard, while Shcharanskyndreams about Jerusalem in Siberia.nBut cruelty inflicted upon the anti-communistsnseems to the Liberal Culture’snnnpromoters a trifle as compared to thenatrocities inflicted upon the snail darternby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.nAnd this is New York chutzpah at itsnbest, or worst. Or just itsnmost contemptible.nEnigmatic ChoicesnEvonne Goolagong, an Australianntennis player of international repute,nenjoyed raves from the feminists allnaround the world, and laudatory treatisesnin chic magazines for being an aboriginenand a woman independent enough tonsmash out an inadvertent male from thencourts. Then, Ms. Gooloagong marriednand decided to compete in the last Wimbledonntournament not under her ethnicallynimpeccable name, but sportingnthe pedestrian Anglo-Saxon personalitynof a housewife, Mrs. Cawley. No tractnhas yet been spotted in Ms. Magazine,nelucidating this astonishing choice. Anrather contemptuous silence hasnstretched around Mrs. Cawley.nGeniuses Are Among UsnThe Chicago Tribune, the last of thenclassy journals not to recognize a greatnartist when it sees one, reports to itsnfaithful readers on the torments of onenGerard Damiano, creator of Deep Throatnand other monumental landmarks of thenporno cinema. Mr. Damiano deplores thencorruption of mores and reminisces onnthe raptures of his artistic past to thenawestruck Chicago Tribune journalist:n”Deep Throat was the last one I didnthat was fun. Suddenly everyone innthe business began taking themselvesnso seriously. Work became very mechanicalnand very expensive. Now I hadnto deal with ‘porno stars’ who drovenaround in limousines. The techniciansnbegan wanting their cut. It was bignmoney at all levels. People started tonhate people. Before Deep Throat, wen