number of teenage mothers—^and I meannthe pre- 18-year-olds, which makes thesenmothers, by legal definition, childrennthemselves—is at an all-time high. Mrs.nWerner proclaims that a child’s “own”nmother is the best mother, but how doesna child successfully raise another child?nOn the other hand, there are loving, caringnadults who are unable to have theirnown biological children, who make herculeannefforts to get through governmentalnred tape to adopt children. Arenthese mothers, because they played nonphysical role in the creation of their children,ninferior to the teenagers or to anynother women who have borne children?nThe wisdom of the ages—think only ofnMoses—indicates that they aren’t.nCertainly being a mother is fulfilling.nBut I must reiterate the point I made innmy original article: “not every woman isnmeant to be a full-time mother.” Perhapsnthese women should never have bornenchildren; however, given the existencenof the ofepring, the point becomes moot.nPerhaps I didn’t go far enough. Look atnthe battered and beaten children whomnMrs. Werner dismisses as a “very smallnminority.” Many of them are at the mercynof stay-at-home mothers who obviouslyncannot cope. Consider those childrennwho are let out in the morning and whonare readmitted only at night, treatednmuch the same as the family pet. Thesenchildren are victims; literally millions ofnthem exist. And many of their mothersnare 24-hour-a-day mothers in the sensenthat they do not hold paying jobs, nornare they pursuing feminist lifestyles. Anmother who stays home is not necessarilyna guarantee that she is a caring, devotednmother; she may simply prefer soapnoperas or hobbies or kaffeeklatsches toneither a job or her children.nA woman who is emotionally unablento cope with around-the-clock motheringndeserves help and advice (sometimesnin the form of books like Through thenMotherhood Maze) just as a woman withna physical handicap does. Mrs. Wernernrefuses to admit the existence of a womannwho, though she cannot tolerate hernchildren 24 hours a day, is still a caring,nwell-intentioned, if imperfect, mother.nThese mothers do exist; these mothersnneed help—as do their children. DnTHE AMERICAN PROSCENIUMnConsistencynThe wanton murder by a Soviet militarynjet fighter of 269 unarmed, helplessn[jersons in a civilian aircraft near SakhalinnIsland may shock and repel but shouldnnot surprise. The act is consistent withninnumerable massacres of irmocentsnwhich stem from the very nature of communism.nBeginning with the bestial eradicationnof opponents after the revolutionnin 1917, the history of communism hasnbeen the history of ruthless eliminationnof any individual or group that the communistnideological assassins deem propernfor demise, regardless of their objectiventransgression. The right to kill is the onlynprecondition for the success of the com­n48inChronicles of Culturenmunist doctrine in practice, and, overnthe decades, has become the only strictiynobserved, fiinctional law of the Sovietnstate. It started with the slaughter ofnpeasants who opposed collectivization;ncontinued through the largest wholesalenhomicide in annals in the gulag; throughnthe Katyn carnage of 11,000 gagged andnhandcuffed Polish officers; through thenbloodbaths of grave ditches in thenUkraine and Baltic states after World WarnII, where unaccounted numbers of humansnwere and are butchered by KGBn—always without any weapon in theirnhands, defenseless in the &ce of machinenguns and flamethrowers. They are notnunlike those who were caged in a passengernairliner on that fetal first day ofnSeptember; the Soviet-style, indiscrimi­nnnnate and cold-blooded mayhem has justnbeen extended to aerospace.nThe “moral” archtenet on which thenSoviet civilization rests is that communismnis mankind’s savior; thus, thencommunists can take people’s lives atnwill. This in itself makes it clear that noncivilization based on normative moralitynas the source of law can coexist onnthis planet with the Soviet one whichnclaims the right to murder on its own,nnonnegotiable terms. As our banefulncentury nears its end, the ultimate iniquitynof communism emerges as morenprofoundly antihuman than what wenthought of as an abyss of fascism andnnazism measured on the philosophicalnscales. The nazi monster looked at evilnand declared it more desirable than good:na relatively simple human folly. Thencommunist looks evil in the eye and seesngood in it: the most despicable atrophynof humanness that deserves unmitigatednhatred. And no less scorn should be reservednto those who—according to thenfolksy, marvelous, precise, Americannpolitical idiom—^are soft on communism:nthey see the manifestations of evil andnrefuse to notice them.nThe Korean airliner tragedy, dismal asnit is, provides the U.S. with an unexpectednoppormnity to win a major, if not decisive,nbattie in the ideological war of wordsnthat has been w^ed since the end ofnWorld War 11. The Soviets, in a desperatenattempt to avoid universal outrage, resortnto the most rabid, but also primitive,ntechniques of lying, rarely used sincenthe time of Stalin’s manuals of agitprop,nwhen Soviet population was practicallynand hermetically sealed off from the outsidenworld. Rarely before has the veryntruth that communism is an edificenerected on a monstrous, monumentalnreversal of truth, so egregious that itndefies reason, been so clearly visible tonmankind. Unfortunately, it appears thatnPresident Reagan and his policy plannersnare Ming to take advantage of this uniquensituation. More unfortunate is the historicalntrendline: this situation, given thenhistory of the Soviets, won’t be uniquenfor long. nn