No doubt, alcohol consumption andrndie lack of a curfew played an importantrnrole in the riots in Quebec Cih’ on JeanrnBaptiste Day in 1996. But this hardK’precludesrndieir political content. Riotingrnhas not been a problem in either QuebecrnCih’ or Montreal on the average Fridayrnnight or on other holidays, only on thernholiday which is a source of both greatrnpride and political tension throughoutrnthe province.rnMv humble apology to Miss Legaultrnfor assiuning she is a federalist. But thernarticle which I cited appeared in thernMontreal Gazette, the primar’ federalistrnvoice in Quebec, and it is h’pical of thernfederalist media’s state of denial.rnMr. Albert makes a similar mistake inrnassuming that I am a paleoconscrvativernsimply because my article appeared inrnChronicles. The main sentiment I sharernwith Chronicles is its bold challenge ofrnthose forms of bigotr}’ which are acceptablernin elite intellectual circles.rnMr. Albert claims that “the proportionrnof French Canadians living direcdy or indirectiyrnon federal handouts is comparablernto that of America’s black minority”;rnin fact, the percentage of French Canadiansrnwho rely on goNernment assistance isrngreater than that of black Americans. ButrnMr. Albert’s condemnation of FrenchrnCanadians for accepting welfare indicatesrnthat English-speaking Canadarnapplies a higher standard to FrenchrnCanada. All of Canada —French andrnEnglish —is reliant on a huge governmentrnbureaucracy.rnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnB O R I S Y E L T S I N appeared on thernRussian state-run television networks onrnDecember 31, 1999, with an unexpectedrn—bv ordinary Russians, at least—announcement:rn”It is time for new faces,”rnsaid die man who is most responsible forrncreahng Hie “new Russia.” “I am resigning,”rncroaked the dipsomaniac politicalrnboss, renowned for his master)’ of elite poliricalrnintrigues and hated by the “otherrnRussia” of one-legged war veterans leftrnwithout pensions, ancient crones beggingrnin the streets, and patriots shamed byrnthe humiliahon of their countr}’ throughrnthe corruption of the president’s entourage,rnthe “family.” Yeltsin offered arnClintonesc|ue apolog)- for any “mistakes”rnmade during his eight-year reign; thoughrnhis intentions were good, he was perhapsrn”naie ” to diink that there would not be arnfew rock)- patches on the road to the newrnRussia. In the West, Yeltsin’s departurernwas accompanied by cynical crowingrnabout the “Father of Russian Democracy”rnand the “end of an era” (though thernsighs of relief were audible as well).rnWhile Yeltsin’s resignation was certainlyrndie end of something, just what came tornan end will probably not become clearrnunhl after the early presidential electionsrnscheduled for March 26.rnChronicles readers were the first in diernWest to learn of Yeltsin’s possible early retirementrn(see Cultural Revolutions, Decemberrn1999). The deal with a successorrnhinged on two diings: first, an agreementrnto shield Yeltsin and his blood relationsrnfrom post-term prosecution (acting PresidentrnVladimir Putin’s first official act wasrnto sign an executive order grantingrnYeltsin immunit)’ from prosecution andrnproiding a comfortable post-Kremlin incomernfor his relatives); and second, a polificalrnsituation diat would make the successorrnvirtually unbeatable in earl) presidentialrnelections {Chronicles readers arernalso aware of the Kremlin’s possible, cenrnprobable, involvement in provoking thernsplendid little war in the Caucasus,rnwhere the Russian army’s success thus farrnhas rallied the population around ex-rnKGB operaHve Putin; the relative victorvrnof pro-Kremlin forces in die Decemberrn19 parliamentary elections probabK’ determinedrnPutin’s future role). There mayrnbe, however, a third precondition, onernthat would allow Yeltsin to reign, thoughrnnot necessarily rule, as the leader of arnnewly minted Russia-Belarus union. Inrneffect, Yeltsin could become Russia’srnDeng Xiaoping, hovering around thernKremlin, just off the political radarrnscreen. It would be a characteristic movernfor a man whose whole adult life hasrnbeen devoted to the ruthless pursuit ofrnpower, whose only real pasfimc has beenrna never-ending series of intrigues.rnWhat a state Yeltsin leaves Russia in:rnCrime and official corruption are rampant;rna demographic black hole is suckingrnthe nation toward oblivion, withrnsome observers claiming that the countr)’rns population will be cut in half in justrn50 )ears; the war in the Caucasus is ragingrnand will likely haunt a debilitatedrnRussia in the next centim’; the econom’rnis in a shambles (though temporarih’rnbolstered b’ higher oil prices); and therncountr)”s moral corrupfion, exemplifiedrnb) Yeltsin and the family, has becomernthe .stuff of legend.rnFew claim that Yeltsin created thisrnfreak show single-handedly, but fewerrnwould claim that he attempted to do anythingrnabout it: In fact, his own beha’iorrnencouraged decadence and degradafion.rnThe Russian people remember therndrunkard who embarrassed the nation bvrnpinching women during official functions,rnpassing out in Ireland, druiikenlyrnconducting an orchestra in Germany,rnand displaying cruelt)’ to his opponentsrnand callousness to the fate of his own people.rn”Let them eat cake” could vell havernbeen the signature line of Yeltsin’s de factornchief of staff, his daughter T’at)ana Dyachenko,rnwhose greed and stupiditv arerndie source of man Yeltsin-era anecdotes.rnThe end may not et have come forrnYeltsin and the “family,” but his “place inrnhistory” has already been assured. Godrnhelp Russia.rn— Denis PetrovrnCJAY MARRIAGE is once again in thernnews. This time, the rumblings come notrnfrom the Sandwich Islands, but thernGreen Mountains of Vermont. In a ridingrnhanded down right before Christinas,rnthe state’s governing bodv, the VermontrnSupreme Court, instructed the legislaturernto extend the benefits and protectionsrnof marriage to homosexual couples.rnThe court’s decision rested on its interpretationrnof the Common BenefitsrnClause of the Vermont Constitution. Inrnessence, the clause declares that governmentrnis instituted for the benefit of thernentire communit)’, not for the advantagernof the few. Homosexual couples arguedrnthat Vermont’s refusal to issue them marriagernlicenses unconstitutionallv deprivedrnthem of certain statutory rightsrnand privileges such as spousal insurancernbenefits, medical decision-making privileges,rnand intestate succession.rnThe court had asked whether Vermont’srnprohibition of homo,sexual marriagernbore a reasonable relation to thernstate’s interests behind the policv. Vermontrnadvanced a number of reasons forrnMARCH 2000/5rnrnrn