is greeted with a Hallmark card in placenof baptism. Of all the basic human conditionsnfamily is, it seems, most subjectnto the trivializing pathos of sentimentality.nLet me be specific. Eli’s brutal usenof Elizabeth as “a baby machine” isncertainly frowned upon, and rathernforcefully portrayed, but the ultimatencause of the frown (should it be a terriblenscowl.”) is never even considered.nThe two homosexuals, Demby and Turner,ngo off together gayly, “a promisingnstart,” having found love. It is difficultnto decide whether or not they are a discordantnnote in the otherwise heterosexualnround (“At least you won’t getnpregnant”), or one more realization ofnlove having found its object. Even ifnthe odd couple is used ironically, wenhave no way of knowing what might benat the base of the irony.nMost important, Dr. Eli Silver, pendiatrician. Busch is tireless in presentingnthe gruesome details of Silvernmaking his rounds, proving his passionatencommitment to fending off temporarilynthe early consequences of mortalitynin the young. Guilt-ridden over accidentallynallowing his son to die, he resolvesnto have another. Yet he can, withnthe compassion bred from sentimentality,ncommit murder because a youngnpatient is hopelessly ill. The couragento give life and the “courage” to take itnare radically different matters. If thendifference need be spelled out, one isncreation and the other, as Eli knows, isnmurder. What now of the family of mannand the common morality? I cannotnfind any suggestion in the text that thisnmonstrous action is a profound and irresponsiblenviolation of the network ofnhuman relationships.nWhile Busch seems aware of thenprimitive power of the family, the networknof human relationships and thencommon morality must be understoodnas something more than primitive. Thendelicate balance of responsibilities sustainingnthe Judeo-Christian nature ofnmarriage depends upon something morenSOinChronicles of Culturenthan a functional analysis of society.nWithout Busch’s intending” it, Roundsnbrings to mind the recent White HousenConference on The American Family.nChairman Jim Guy Tucker’s welcomingnremarks are especially important:n”… we’re going to focus on today’snfamilies, their diversity and pluralism.”nAnyone who knows anything about thatnconference knows that “pluralism” wasna code word for including every deviantnvariation of the essential family structure.nThe sense of the pluralism of familynforms was given official sanction,nas it were, but only because society hadnalready accepted it as a fact. It had becomenpart of the cultural ambience sonthat it was naturally a part of the novelist’snworld. Without normative standards,nwhich I do not find implied innBusch’s novel, unsanctioned sexual arrangements,npromiscuity and homosexualityncannot be discouraged or restrained.nOne would not be surprisednto find such pluralism in sociology textbooksndealing with the family, but it isndisappointing to find it in the work ofna novelist who should know better. DnOn Economic Dreams and FactsnLester C. Thurow: The Zero-SumnSociety; Basic Books; New York.nby William E. Cagenrxundreds of thousands of collegenstudents have enrolled in Economicsn101 and, within five days, have discoverednwhy economics is called the “dismalnscience.” It can be dismal as a coursenof study—it uses abstract and unmeasurablenconcepts, the professors are fondnof drawing all manner of strange graphsnon the blackboard, and the answer tonalmost all questions is “it all depends.”nAt the same time, professors of economicsnhave a reputation for cockiness,nfor appearing to know more than anyonenelse, for seeming to belong to angroup of insiders who have simple answersnto complex problems.nHowever, the discipline of economicsntruly deserves its title of “dismal” notnfrom the rigors of Econ. 101 but fromnthe anti-Utopian nature of economicnanalysis. Sound economics does not allownany “free lunches.” Pie-in-the-skynschemes are dashed to the ground. Solutionsnto problems are, though simple,nnext to impossible to achieve. The funnof economics—yes, economics can benDr. Cage is a corporate economist innJoplin, Missouri.nnnfun—comes in pointing out how simplenthe causes of our problems are. The nextnnatural step would be to set forth prescriptionsnfor policies which will, allnother things being equal, solve thosenproblems. But what have we introducednimplicitly, if not explicitly? It is policy.nThat is, it is government actions thatnwe seem to immediately bring in as anmeans of solving problems. However,nwhat often escapes us is the fact thatnmost policy prescriptions are for eliminatingnthe policy. That, of course, leadsnto the next logical step which is thatngovernment policy is the primary causenof our multitude of economic woes. Fornexample: there is little doubt that unemploymentnis a serious social and economicnill. Almost any professional economistnwould prescribe a reduction ornelimination of the minimum wage as anmeans of reducing unemployment. Ifnwe pursue the subject even further, wenwould probably find that eliminating thenminimum wage would, in addition tonreducing unemployment, reduce crimenin the streets, discipline problems innthe schools, and perhaps even the teenagensuicide rate. If we wanted to spicenup the entire argument, we could alsonadd that the minimum wage is one ofnthe secret weapons that northern statesnhave used to continue fighting the Southnmore than a century after the Civil Warn