its victim. As Chapman comments, otherrnforms of abortion are also pretty gruesome,rnand if partial birth abortions arerntoo gruesome to tolerate, perhaps wernneed to take a more critical look at allrnabortions. If instead of being a rare procedurernpartial birth abortions are a commonrnprocedure, then perhaps this is lessrnof a reason for permitting them than forrnregulating the others as well.rnParadoxically, if the procedure isrnbanned, it may take some of the heat offrnthe controversy: “See, there are somernthings nobody will stand for.” But if thernpro-abortionists get to keep this procedure,rnit may turn the public against abortionrnaltogether. If the pro-abortionistsrn(and President Clinton) are seen to stoprnat nothing, in order to have their totalrnfreedom, then the public may eventuallyrnrecognize them for what they are, andrnwrite finis to this sad episode in Americanrnlife. If the defenders of capital punishmentrninsisted that it is proper to drawrnand quarter, or to burn at the stake, insteadrnof resorting to the neat, painless,rnquasi-medical lethal injection, then it isrnlikely that capital punishment wouldrnsoon be abolished. By insisting that partialrnbirth abortions are benevolent andrnnecessary, the defenders of “abortionrnrights” may be dealing their cause a fatalrnblow. It would be justice.rn—Harold O./. BrownrnHILLARY CLINTON’S visit tornAfrica in late March, which was billedrnas a “goodwill tour” to strengthen America’srnties with developing nations,rncombined business with pleasure. In betweenrnmeetings and photo-opportunitiesrnwith African heads of state, Mrs.rnClinton and her daughter Chelsea did arnlittle taxpayer-funded sightseeing in thernwilds of Uganda, Tanzania, and otherrnpoor countries. They seemed to enjoyrnplaying Isak Dinesen—gazing at rhinos,rngreeting throngs of natives—beforernreturning to the comfort and safety ofrnthe White House.rnThis tour was also a great publicityrnstunt for the First Lady, who had wiselyrnkept a low profile while her husbandrnsought reelection. During her visit tornSouth Africa, Mrs. Clinton met andrnposed for a picture with Nelson Mandela,rnthe great martyr to the cause ofrnfreedom who was selling photo-opportunitiesrnfor $56,000 a shot. Mrs. Clintonrnalso visited a shrine dedicated to the victimsrnof the white regime before takingrnoff for meetings with other heads ofrnstate, who are vying for a larger share ofrnUSAID funds.rnWhen in South Africa, Mrs. Clintonrnsounded off on the problems of AIDS, illiteracy,rnand—her pet cause—the educationrnof young girls, but kept silentrnabout the continuing abuses of thernprovincial government in Kwazulu/Natal,rnwhose leader has recently served asrnacting president of South Africa. Thernevils of the Afrikaner regime have, inrnthe words of Macaulay, passed into arnproverb, but according to the humanrnrights group Africa Watch, ChiefrnButhelezi’s ruling Inkatha Freedom Partyrnis still murdering hundreds of politicalrnopponents every year.rnHaving expressed her solidarity withrnpast victims of political violence, Mrs.rnClinton visited Ugandan first lady JanetrnMuseveni in Kampala, where the twornposed smiling for the photographers.rnMrs. Museveni, of course, is the wife ofrnYoweri Museveni, who according tornAmnesty International has presided overrntorture and extrajudicial killings byrnNational Resistance Army units and thernwidespread practice of kandooya, tying arncaptive’s arms together above thernelbows and behind the back, which resultsrnin excrutiating pain. (Yes, Uganda isrna signatory to most of the major humanrnrights treaties.)rnDuring her visit to Senegal, Mrs. Clintonrnsaid nothing about the continuationrnof black slavery in sub-Saharan Africa (arnsubject covered by the New York Timesrnjust weeks before her visit), though sherndid praise the West for having emancipatedrnthe black man over a centuryrnago. Nor did she mention Senegal’srnlong-running war with ethnic separatistsrnin the southern province of Casamance,rnwhich has resulted in the extrajudicialrnexecution and torture of suspectedrnrebels.rnUnconcerned with the grave issuesrnfacing the region, Mrs. Clinton used herrntour as an opportunity to do on a globalrnscale what she has failed to achieve inrndomestic politics—to use Washington’srnmassive power as a means to play Cod,rnreaching down from her Mount Olympusrnon Pennsylvania Avenue and imposingrnher whims on a backward people inrnneed of enlightenment. According to arnNewsweek report, the rights of women inrnforeign countries will now be a principalrnconcern of American foreign policy asrnshaped by Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Albright.rnIn foreign policy as well as in domesticrnaffairs, it seems, 60’s-era feministrnvictimology is the kinder, gentler imperialism.rn—Michael WashburnrnEDUCATION is today’s politicalrnbuzzword, and, like any issue involvingrnchildren, it is quickly becoming a trumprncard. Following President Clinton’s cue,rnJesse Jackson is traveling the country,rnraising support for an “education summit.”rnAnd despite Ceorgc Bush’s claimrnto be the “education President,” Clintonrnhas put more of a mark on the Americanrneducational system, further centralizingrneducation, both academically and financially,rnin Washington, D.C.rnMost of the educational “goals” thatrnClinton set forth in his State of thernUnion Address were unobjectionable, althoughrnhis overemphasis on technologyrnand computer training is a problem, evenrnfor those who believe that the sole purposernof education is the production ofrnskilled workers. Computer technologyrnis advancing so rapidly that anythingrnlearned in grade school will be completelyrnuseless by the time the student entersrnthe workforce. The visual imagery ofrncomputers has also undermined the developmentrnof fundamental skills such asrnreading and writing, and their presencernin the classroom, and more importantlyrnin homes, is one reason why a vast numberrnof children are still unable to read atrnage eight.rnThe trouble with Clinton’s educationalrnplans, however, is that they representrnfurther federal intervention in education,rna subject traditionally reserved tornstates and local governments. Just as thernconstitutional language of preservingrn”the common defense” has been used tornjustify meddling in the internal affairs ofrnother countries, so too the language ofrnpromoting “the common welfare” hasrnbeen used to justify undermining thernrole of parents, local communities, andrnstates in educating their young.rnSince the Republican takeover ofrnCongress in 1994 was supposed to be arnvote for devolution, Clinton should havernfaced some opposition from Republicans.rnIs there a clearer issue on which tornargue for taking power away from Washingtonrnand returning it to parents and localrncommunities? But the oppositionrnnever materialized. Indeed, one of thernmost impassioned leaders in the battlernfor returning welfare policy to the states,rnMichigan Governor John Engler, has en-rn8/CHRONiCLESrnrnrn