Most public events are really stagedrn”happenings” (remember the 60’s?) inrnwhich an athlete gets to say he’s sorry (orrnnot sorry) for socking his coach or stabbingrnhis wife. Bill Clinton is a master ofrnthis art. Running for the presidency, Billrnand his wife went on television to confessrnto having had “problems” in their marriage.rnMore recently, the first couple,rnwho reportedly cannot stand the sight ofrneach other, were caught by photographersrnin an intimate moment on thernbeach. This gave the White House arngolden opportunity to insult the paparazzi,rnand the President could appearrnas a lovable slob who loves his wife.rnIn America these days, everythingrncomes down to TV—even TV. No onernknows this better than Jerry Seinfeld.rnFaced with bad reviews and potentiallyrnbad ratings, Jerry could have retiredrngracefully and gone on to other things,rnbut why pass up an opportunity to be thernlead story on the news? Some newspaperrneditors have even started counting downrnthe Seinfeld episodes like so many daysrntill Christmas.rnThe same newspapers regularly printrnfeatures like “Today’s Birthdays.” Arernthese the birthdays of war heroes andrnstatesmen? Scientists and business leaders?rnPainters and poets? Not unless thernpoet played a part in Dead Poets Society.rnOn any given day, the list is made up exclusivelyrnof actors and actresses, most ofrnwhom I have never heard of Today thernlist is headed by Robert Stack and goesrnon to mention comedian Rip Taylor, actorrnRichard Moll, musician Fred White,rnactor Kevin Anderson, and actress Julia-rnLouis Dreyfus, who turned 37.rnThirty years from now, when no onernremembers her name, Julia-Louis Dreyfusrnwill be a star of “Today’s Birthdays,”rnand that is all that Saddam Hussein reallyrnwants. We could save ourselves a lot ofrngrief if we would just guarantee Saddamrnthe lead story on Dan Rather for the nextrnfive years.rn—Thomas FlemingrnAMERICAS POLITICAL ANDrnbusiness elite, ostensibly dedicated torncompassion and prosperity, showed theirrntrue colors this winter. First came a seriesrnof investigative articles by the AssociatedrnPress in December documentingrnthe employment of child labor in thernUnited States. “Kids at work: Is thisrnchildhood?” screamed the headlines,rnand “Toughest child labor laws are notrnenforced.” The AP series caused an instantrnsensation, as embarrassed federalrnofficials and company directors expressedrnshock and outrage, promising torncrack down on violators of child laborrnlaws, and — in the case of Labor SecretaryrnAlexis Herman —appealing to therngeneral public for “help.”rnThe source of the outrage is the evidencernof children as young as four doingrnjobs that are either dangerous or performedrnin hazardous environments.rnMany of the children observed by the APrnreporters worked with their families doingrnagricultural stoop labor, a form ofrndrudgery not inherently dangerous.rnShocked to discover that a social evilrnthought to have been eradicated was reassertingrnitself, none of the moralistsrnthought to ask why employed 12- and 14-rnyear-olds should be more scandalousrnthan pregnant teenagers, or whetherrnchildren might not be better off inrnthe fields picking chili peppers forrnPaul Newman or Heinz than in schoolrnputting condoms on cucumbers. Morernsignificantiy, they did not mention thatrnthe great majority of the worker-childrenrnwere immigrants (how many of them illegalrnimmigrants no decent Americanrnwould think of asking).rnThe shock, however, was entirelyrnfeigned. The federal government hasrnbeen aware of widespread violation ofrnchild labor laws for years, just as it hasrnbeen aware of violations of the nation’srnimmigration laws. In both cases, it eitherrnignored such violations or even devisedrnlegislation to circumvent the applicationrnof its own laws. Not surprisingly, the government’srnexplanation of its actions (orrnrather, inaction) with regards to illicitrnchild labor is the same as in the case ofrnillegal immigration: “We were out there,rnwe couldn’t/i’nd anybody!” —”We justrndon’t have enough people on therngroundl” That’s strange. Don’t file a taxrnreturn this year, and see how easy it is forrnthe government to lose you.rnThen came the breaking of an alienrnsmuggling ring operating in and aroundrnLas Cruces, New Mexico. The operationrnappears to be just another borderrnscam of the garden variety, in whichrnworkers from central Mexico paid arnthousand dollars for transportation acrossrnthe border to safe-houses in Las Crucesrnand Hatch, New Mexico, thence tornTrenton, Georgia, and Henegar, Alabama.rnWhy these small towns rather thanrnNew York City or Miami? Apparentiyrnbecause the Atiantic Finishing Companyrnhas a plant in each one. The presidentrnof Atlantic allegedly was recruitingrnillegal laborers through Saul and RachelrnResendiz in Dalton, Georgia. Accordingrnto the indictment, Atlantic, a T-shirtrnmanufacturer, hired its illegal employeesrnunder false names and provided themrnwith forged documents to throw the federalrnbloodhounds off the scent. “Thisrncase,” according to federal attorney JohnrnKelly, “illustrates how demand createdrnby a U.S. company has the effect of luringrnand recruiting Mexican nationalsrnand others from Latin America to crossrnthe international border.” “In my 25-rnyear history [with the Border Patrol], I’vernnever seen a case that took people fromrnrecruitment in the interior of Mexico torna predetermined destination with jobsrnlined up,” remarked William Veal, chiefrnof the Patrol’s El Paso sector.rnApparently, the American governmentrnand American business are colludingrnon a common agendum which includesrnimporting endless streams of poorrnpeople to swell the proletariat—the federalrngovernment’s equivalent of the Parisrnmob—and to ensure a bottomless pool ofrncheap labor from which “businessmen”rncan draw. We know now that NAFTArnmeans the loss of American jobs to Mexico,rnand “free trade” the expenditure ofrnthe American taxpayers’ money on therngovernments of Japan, South Korea, andrnThailand so that Wall Street bankers willrnnot have to sing for their supper tonight.rnWhether illicit child labor or illegal immigration,rnit all amoimts to business asrnusualrn-Chilton Williamson, ]r.rnPRESIDENT BILL C L I N T O N ‘ S announcement,rnmade during his briefrnChristmas visit to Bosnia, that U.S.rntroops were going to stay in that blightedrnBalkan province well beyond the initiallyrnannounced “deadline” of June 1998,rnsurprised only the naive. The only surprisingrnaspect of the announcement wasrnClinton’s refusal to set any new deadlines:rnthe troops were to stay, he said,rn”until the job is done.”rnIf “the job” in question is the creationrnof a stable, peaceful, and more or less integratedrnstate in Bosnia-Herzegovina, therntroops will stay indefinitely, because thernobjective is imattainable. If “the job” isrnsimply to keep the warring factions apart,rnthen the Clinton administration ought tornstop talking about the “reintegration” ofrnBosnia as its objective. After the traumarn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn