National Review. Kasun, a disciple ofnJulian Simon, parrots the “What, MenWorry?” line championed by Simonnand Ben Wattenberg.nI wish that I could recommend annintelligent, comprehensive treatmentnof environmental and population issuesnwritten by a conservative. But Incan’t, since one has yet to appear. Fornmany readers of this journal, the mostnreadily accessible discussions of a hostnof related concerns can be discoverednin the writings of Professor Hardin.nStalking the Wild Taboo (1978), NakednEmperors (1982), and FiltersnAgainst Folly (1985) are among hisnlong list of works. Such diverse commentatorsnas Richard Lamm, TomislavnSunic (in the January Chronicles), andnthe late Edward Abbey are representativenof those who publicly recognizenthe cogency of his arguments.nOver twenty years ago, historiannAndrew Hacker suggested that whatnhad once been the United States hadnalready ceased to exist and what remainednis simply “bounded territory.”nThere is, to my mind, nothing “conservative,”nnor necessarily “pro-life,”nabout policies that, if not soon reversed,nmust almost certainly lead ourn”bounded territory” to enjoy the environmental,neconomic, and ethnic conditionsnprevailing in such places as thenIndian subcontinent: This is not anfuture I imagine most readers ofnChronicles should look forward to.nOn ‘AffirmativenScholarship’nIn Murray Rothbard’s deconstructionnof Thomas Sowell (Opinions, Decembern1990), there is an incontrovertiblenpoint about language and politics: whennyou get right down to it, contending ornmerely competitive parties around thenworld do not like to rule themselves, ornbe ruled, in the language of the othernguy-nI have wondered for some time hownthis matter of language will work out innthe proposed European unification.nItalians will communicate with Finnsnin — what? — English? I read somewherenyears ago that scientists in communistnAlbania had only English innwhich to share research with peers inncommunist China. Is English to become,nby default, the lingua franca (oddnterm in this connection) of the newnEurope? That would be an amusing lastnstage in the decline of empire, but onenimagines the political resentmentsnwould be huge.nSo I hereby announce a campaign —nthat I cannot imagine pursuing vigorously—tonestablish the renewal andnteaching of Latin as the language ofnunified Europe. Once you merely statenthe idea, the advantages leap to mindnand don’t need to be enumerated here.nI have high hopes for this proposalnbecause we have seen in our own timenan impressive example of such a restitution:nHebrew coming back to life innIsrael as a medium for speech, newspapers,nand novels.nThis is an idea whose time has come.nN’est-ce pas?n— Tom WhitenOdessa, TXnMr. Fleming Replies:nI couldn’t agree more. When I madenthe suggestion, more or less tongue inncheek, that poets may as well write innLatin, for all the audience they arengoing to have, the Village Voice foundnthe idea hilarious.nOn ‘Good News’nI received in the mail an advertisementnfor your magazine and decided to acceptnthe invitation to have the magazinensent to me. I recently received thenDecember 1990 issue, and I amnamazed at how little your magazinenresembles the magazine that was advertised.nI did not keep the ad. I wish I had sonthat I could quote it now. But I understoodnthe gist of the ad to be that thenpeople who run the magazine werenunhappy about the basic thrust of contemporarynAmerican culture, that youncriticized it from a conservative point ofnview and praised works of value that thenguardians of the dominant culture denigratednor ignored.nThe December issue indicates thatnyour writers think that American culturenhas two problems, one small andnone large. The small one is that some ofnthe people active in the dominant culturengo a little bit too far. The big one isnthose nasty old conservatives who don’tnnnlike what your writers write.nWhat do your writers like? Women’snstudies departments (rigorous ones, ofncourse), the lambada, Paul Ehrlich, NationalnPublic Radio opening a newnoffice, mercantilist economics, thatnbloodthirsty liberal Richard Lamm, societyn(especially New York City) fallingnapart.nWhat do your writers hate? Thosenstupid conservatives who don’t likenwomen’s studies departments (“selfproclaimedndefenders of inherited culture”nwho by opposing women’s studiesncause it to be bad), the National Endowmentnfor the Arts, “the far-rightnloonies of the Hearst press, columnistsnlike Fulton Lewis and simplemindedn’patriots’ on the House Un-AmericannActivities Committee,” fluoridation,nNew York City, immigrants, thosenWashington conservatives who readnChronicles too closely, the lack ofnaffirmative action hiring of mathematiciansnand scientists at the Institute fornAdvanced Studies.nIn general, I found your writers tonhave that self-indulgent style of writingncharacteristic of community collegenstudents. They often dealt with trivialnissues in petty ways. The only reason Inwould subscribe to this magazine is tonfind out whether each and every issuencontains compliments for Core Vidalnand Norman Mailer.n— Eugene HamillnFolcroft, PAnMr. Fleming Replies:nDirect mail packages can never saynmore than a little about the quality of anmagazine. Ours did not tell you tonwatch out for unpredictable judgmentsnor unfashionable opinions. Ours did notndeclare openly that we were not preachingnonly to the choir, or that we thoughtnit our duty to expose our readers to anvariety of points of view, while makingnour own positions clear in editorials. Wenalso did not say, because we thought itnwas unnecessary, that we frequentlynpublish articles and reviews with which Inand my editors disagree. But once wenhave commissioned a piece, we onlynreject it on grounds of style or competence,nnever for ideological reasons. Innthe future, you should stick to advertisingncopy exclusively and avoid the painfulnexperience of thinking for yourselfnMARCH 1991/5n