EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, ]r.rnMANAGING EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnHarold O./. Brown, KatherinernDalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rnJ.O. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Murchison, William Mills,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob Neusner,rnSrdja TrifkovicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy LinkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn928 North Main Street, Rockford, IE 61103,rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: |815) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Monis, IE 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S..^. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright iS 1999 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $39.00 (foreign subscnptions add $12rnfor surface delivery, $48 for Air Mail) per year byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Street,rnRockford, IL 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IL and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER: Send address changesrnto Chronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernreturned unless accompanied b a self-addresficdrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol. 2>. No. 2 Februar)’ 1999rnFrinted in ihe Unitec! States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Hillary Clinton inrnBulgariarnDuring Hillary Clinton’s recent trip tornBulgaria {Cultural Revolutions, December),rnthe Washington Times featured arnfront-page photo of the First Lady surroundedrnby several Bulgarian orphans,rnover the caption, “Aiding Orphans.”rnI sincerely hope that Mrs. Clintonrnshowed more compassion toward thesernBulgarian orphans than she did duringrnher 1996 visit with their Rumanianrncounterparts. According to Rumanianrnnews sources, the First Lady made quiternan impact on the lives of several hundredrnof the orphanage’s poor boys and girls.rnhi a most benevolent gesture of goodwillrnand caring, Hillary Clinton gave eachrnneedy orphan . . . a pair of sunglasses.rnRumanian authorities and the Orthodoxrnclergy present during this demonstrationrnof Mrs. Clinton’s insensitivityrnand callousness were left speechless.rnLater, the shocked workers at the orphanagerntold the press that they had neverrnthought that the First Lady could be sornunaware of the underfunded and decrepitrnstate of Rumanian orphanages andrnso apathetic toward the plight of Rumanianrnorphans, who are in dire need of thernnecessities of life and love, not of sunglasses.rnAfter the fall of communism, photosrnof Rumania’s orphaned babies shockedrnthe West. Most of these orphaned babiesrnhad remained in unpainted or peelingrncribs for months, even years, withoutrnbeing held, or touched, or spoken to.rnOlder children were bathed by beingrnstripped and hosed down like animals.rnWe all saw those pictures. Who couldrnnot have been moved by them?rnEven a bar of chocolate or a piece ofrnfruit would have been welcomed byrnthese poor, unfortunate children. But arnpair of sunglasses?rn—Stella L. ]atrasrnSterling, VArnOn the Art of the ReviewerrnRarely does an author receive the kind ofrncritical understanding displayed inrnThomas Fleming’s review of Our Fathers’rnFields (“The Fall and Rise of thernHouseof Hardy,” December 1998). Dr.rnFleming went to the central issues of thernbook as a “Southern Agrarian novel”rnwith such a sensitivity and acumen thatrnits author would feel remiss in not acknowledgingrnit. Dr. Fleming’s is thernkind of review all writers wish for theirrnworks but seldom get—especially inrnthese times of the half-considered, thernshoddy, the slip-shod, the half-baked, thernmyopic, and the planned obsolescent.rnWhat a joyful thing it is to find a reviewerrnwho carefully, thoughtfully reads thernentire book, and with a breadth of backgroundrnthat allows grasping the big picture.rnOnly with the classical long view ofrnthe Renaissance man is this possible.rnHow sorely lacking in this trait essentialrnto high culture is our poor, sad, “soundbite”rncentury. To Dr. Fleming—whornobviously has “knowledge carried to thernheart”—the heart-felt thanks of the authorrnof Our Fathers’ Fields.rn—James Everett KiblerrnAthens, GArnOn “Something inrnColorado”rnNoises in the woods that the guys justrnweren’t able to record . . . bait laid outrnbut not touched . . . clapping rocks. . . .rnCome on, guys, it sounds like the “snipernhunts” that I was tricked into doing whenrnI was a Boy Scout tenderfoot. But as onernof the men said, “It’s nice to get into thernmountains again.”rn—].M. RodgersrnSierra Madre, CArnOn Public EnemiesrnYour October 1998 issue struck a particularlyrnagreeable note. I am 62, and thernsociety that I knew as a child and youngrnman has been so corrupted that, when Irndescribe that former time to young people,rnthey believe I am indulging somernsort of fantasy.rnStill, the question posed by ThomasrnFleming (“Mob Rules”) seems undulyrntentative: “What if politics in the modernrnstate really is, by definition, a criminalrnprofession?” We know the answer to thatrn4/CHRONICLESrnrnrn