ignores completely. Davis says: “See, Irndon’t believe love should be that way.rn/ don’t think love should be genderspecificrn[emphasis mine].” About whichrnKatie Couric says nothing] She simplyrnasks another unrelated question!rnWhat is her relationship now with herrnparents, the Reagans? Well, “whatever itrnis, is OK,” says Davis, sounding like thern12-step nerd-nurturer Stewart Smalleyrnwho satirizes modern psychology on SaturdayrnNight Live. But she doesn’t discussrnher work with her parents because “it’s arnhuge button” that she doesn’t push anymorernlike she was once eager to do.rnSo, Patti Davis’s new novel Bondagernfeatures two almost-lesbos who havern”sort of echoes in their heads.” No surprisernhere. Because, you see, heads thatrnhave “sort of echoes” in them are sort ofrnempty, not unlike the head of the authorrnof this book.rn—]ohn LoftonrnTHOUGH THE CRIME BILL justrnpassed by Congress toughens federalrnsentencing provisons and makes morernfederal crimes subject to the deathrnpenalty, it is irrelevant to people longingrnfor safer streets and neighborhoods.rnAlso largely irrelevant is the proposal tornmake more offenses federal crimes.rnThere may be more federal crimes, butrnthere won’t be more federal courts, sornmost of those offenses will continue tornbe dealt with as state crimes.rnEven the provisions that may be relevantrn—more police officers and grantsrnfor prison construction and operation—rnmay not be the unqualified boon theyrnappear to be at first glance. State and localrngovernments will have to find moneyrnfor expensive matching programs—andrnin a few years they will have to find evenrnmore money, because they will be payingrnthe full cost. There is also big money inrnthe bill for what are termed “communityrncrime prevention programs.” In plainrnlanguage, that means pork-barrel projects,rnwith grants and federal jobs thatrnmembers of Congress can use to buyrnvotes.rnAnd then there is the Racial JusticernAct. The Racial Justice Act was passedrnby the House but omitted from the finalrncrime bill. It would have allowed deathrowrninmates to use statistics to challengerna state or federal death sentence asrnracially biased. The government wouldrnthen have had to prove a negative—thatrnthere was no discrimination based onrnrace. The Congressional Black Caucusrnagreed to drop the Racial Justice Actrnfrom the crime bill after President Clintonrnpromised to use executive orders tornachieve the same result on the federalrnlevel. Senate Republicans had promisedrnto filibuster the crime bill to death if thernprovision was in it.rnThe Racial Justice Act might morernaccurately have been termed the RacialrnInjustice Act, since it was about neitherrnjustice nor race; instead, it was a backdoorrnapproach to outlawing the deathrnpenalty. Although ostensibly aimed atrnbenefiting blacks sentenced to death,rnthe act would equally have opened therndoor to claims by whites. It would havernmade it almost impossible to carry outrnany death sentence anywhere. It wouldrnhave negated the principle that everyrncase, and the persons involved, be consideredrnon its own individual merits. Besides,rneven the Devil can quote statisticsrn(like Scripture) to his purpose.rnBlacks make up a higher percentage ofrndeath-row inmates than they do of therngeneral population. However, Nancy E.rnRoman of the Washington Times, whornmade an extensive examination of studiesrnon the death penalty and race, foundrna wide body of research demonstratingrnthat racial bias does not account for therndisparity between the percentages ofrnwhites and blacks arrested, imprisoned,rnor sentenced to death. Moreover, arnstudy by Stephen Klein of the Rand Corporationrnfound that there is no disparityrnbetween those sentenced to death forrnkilling whites and those sentenced forrnkilling blacks, when factors such as severityrnand number of crimes committed arernconsidered. Others, including PatrickrnLanagan of the Bureau of Justice Statistics,rnhave published studies with resultsrnsimilar to Mr. Klein’s.rnNonetheless, there have been occasionalrnstudies that conclude that racialrndiscrimination does exist in sentencing.rnOne—the conclusions of which havernsince been challenged—was used unsuccessfullyrnin an appeal to the SupremernCourt in 1987. Opponents of capitalrnpunishment will doubtless commissionrnothers.rnAlthough promoters of the act concentratedrntheir fire on perceived discriminationrnagainst blacks, whites, whornmake up about 58 percent of death-rowrninmates, might well have made evenrnmore use of it to challenge their sentences.rnFor instance, a white death-rowrninmate could have cited statistics tornclaim that a smaller percentage of blacksrnconvicted of the same crime in the samerncommunity under the same circumstancesrnhave been sentenced to death.rnAs passed by the House, the Racial JusticernAct would also have covered all ofrnthe more than 2,500 inmates alreadyrnawaiting execution. This means that appealsrncould have tied up courts for yearsrnto come.rnJoseph Katz, a professor of statistics atrnGeorgia State University, objects torndefining fairness in sentencing as thernpercentage of whites and blacks sentencedrnto death. Mr. Katz and othersrnhave found that death sentences havernmore to do with the types of crimes committedrnand the circumstances underrnwhich they were committed than withrnthe race of the criminal or victim. Mr.rnKatz has pointed out that, under thernstandards of the Racial Justice Act, thernfairest way to correct the perceived inequityrnin the system would be to sentencernto death more blacks who killrnblacks, since statistically they receive therndeath penalty least of all murderers.rnWould the nation be better off with orrnwithout any federal crime bill at all? It’srnarguable. What the nation does notrnneed, however, is a criminal justice systemrnbased on quotas.rn—Dorman E. CordellrnT H E FLINTSTONESis the latest examplernof Hollywood’s infatuation withrncartoon characters. Because a cartoon isrnnot reality, one is expected to suspendrnbelief and therefore judgment. Everrnsince Mickey Mouse became a cultureherornof the young, it has been hard tornknow where fantasy ends and reality begins.rnNeither is a cartoon myth, and forrnthat reason it does not qualify as fantasyrnin a literary sense. Cartoons are projectionsrnof our fancies that caricature reality.rnIt is hard to react critically to a cartoon,rnbecause people will say: “Loosenrnup, it’s just a cartoon.”rnThere are many cheap thrills in thernFlintstones, made possible by an expensivernset production with the Spielbergrntalent for visual effects. Animals that dornthe work of machines and stone housesrnwith ingenious utensils captivate for arnfew minutes, but then the story beginsrnand one becomes mired in a silly plotlinernthat is made even worse by thernblandness of the characters.rnThe tale starts with Fred, playedrnby John Goodman, coming home torn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn