for mobilizing industry to build upnU.S. conventional war-fighting capabilities,nhowever desirable, seem wellnbeyond the realm of political possibility.nCongress has already brought to anhalt the Reagan rearmament program.nThe President will be lucky if he cannkeep the Strategic Defense Initiativenmoving, a program which fitsnChurba’s desire for an active defensenagainst nuclear attack. Churba is correctnwhen he observes that the U.S.nand its NATO allies have a largernpopulation and several times the economicnstrength of the Soviet Bloc andnshould thus be able to win any armsnrace. He simply fails to address thenpolitical problem of getting the democraciesnto act.nThis lack of will manifests itself innseveral of Henry Kissinger’s articles innObservations, a collection drawn fromn’aried sources, including Senate testimony,nspeeches to NATO meetings,nuniversity seminars, interviews andnarticles in news magazines. Kissingernfavors arrns control negotiations andnNaming the Bardnbelieves that mutually beneficialnagreements are possible. But he seesndefects in SALT II and strongly arguesnthat arms control must be integratednwith defense planning. His idealn— which accords with the Reagannposition—would be an arms treatynwhich would reduce offensive weaponsnto a low enough level that a missiledefensensystem could defeat a firstnstrike.nUnfortunately, many Americansnview arms control as a substitute fornmilitary preparedness. Furthermore,nnegotiations are seen as a way to reducentensions and are thus an end innthemselves. The Soviets play on thesenmisconceptions, with “almost everynSoviet aggressive move . . . followednby an offer to accelerate arms talks.”nYet the talks never lead to arms reductionsnnor to any slackening of Sovietnexpansion. Kissinger repeatedly advocatesn”linkage” between Soviet actionsnand arms talks to break this cycle.nBut can political support be sustainednfor such a policy? Congress hasnby fane Greern”Vera nihil verius”n—Legend on the coat-of-arms of Edward de VerenCharlton Ogburn: The MysteriousnWilham Shakespeaie: The Myth &nThe Reahty; Dodd, Mead & Co.;nNew York; $25.00.nIt’s not the same as saying that God isndead, or the world is flat, or thencheck is in the mail. Yet one wouldnthink that Charlton Ogburn had committednthat kind of atrocity, judging bynthe reaction of most orthodox Shakespeariannscholars to Ogburn’s amazinglynentertaining book arguing thatnthe works of “Shakespeare” were writtennnot by the man from Stratford butnbv Edward de Vere, 17th Earl ofnOxford.nMost people of a’erage literacy willngroan at another new theory—but mostnpeople of average literacy haven’t studiednthe old theories, or the life ofn]ane Greer edits and publishes PlainsnPoetry Journal.n181 CHRONICLES OF CULTUREnShakspere (short “a” — the spellingncounts) of Stratford, or the plays, fornthat matter. Ogburn shows, once andnfor all, that the man from Stratford isnnot credible as the great playwright ornpoet, and that not a single piece ofnevidence helps him. Ogburn alsonshows, in point after patient pointn(about 500 pages’ worth), that Edwardnde Vere is more plausible than anynother candidate put forth in the lastn350 years.nOgburn has used strict investigativenmethods, reasoning from the facts, to anlist of suspects, to the one man atnwhom all clues seem to point, andnonly then working backward from Oxfordnto Shakespeare. The first half ofnthe tome demonstrates what we don’tnknow about Shakspere of Stratford,nwhich would fill an encyclopedia, andnthe littie we do know, which, as onenShakespeare biographer admits, can benwritten on a half sheet of notepapern(although that has not kept him andnnnalready tied funding of new strategicnprograms to a Presidential certificationnthat negotiations are being pursued -tonlimit or ban the new weapons. ThenU.S. is under constant pressure tonprove to its allies that it is not a greaternthreat to peace than the Soviets! Additionalnconcessions to Moscow and unilateralnrestraint are urged upon us. Yetnconstant appeals to patience, moderation,nand “peace” can sap the will of annation to act at all.nKissinger’s position is to the right ofnthe reputation he had while he was innthe Nixon and Ford Administrations.nIn office, Kissinger remarked that it isnimpossible to think about issues; allnyou can do is react to pressure. All ofnthe pressure in Washington pushes innthe direction of retreat. These pressuresncan only be resisted if morenpeople can be made aware of the factsnpresented by Staar, Churba, andnKissinger and then summon thenstrength to act on them. ccnothers from inventing elaborate, voluminousnbiographies of the Bard). Thensecond half of the book’ shows thatnhundreds of details of Oxford’s intimatenlife and circumstances are mirrored,ntoo frequentiy and exactiy forncoincidence, in the plays and sonnets.nShakspere left only six signatures (allnbordering on illiteracy), no letters ornanything else rumored to be in his ownnhand, and no school records. Londonnroyalty, who adored him, and famousncontemporary actors and writers, whonwould have been manifestiy affectednby his presence in their midst, nevernmention him. Oh, they talk about thenplays, and in a handful of instancesnmention “Shakespeare” or “Shakespear,”nbut that character has no character,nno personality, no flesh, in thenrecords, especially when comparednwith what we know about his contemporaries.nNever do we read, “Rode tonthe Globe with Will Shakspere tonight,”nor “Shakespeare told the funniestnstory about his childhood as anglover’s son.” Never is the namen”Shakespeare” mentioned in such ancontext as to imply that he was thenman from Stratford—who died, inci-n