kingmakers in many French regions afterrnlocal elections. Local Gaullist politiciansrnwere threatened with expulsionrnfrom their respective parties if they heldrnonto their places through FN assistance.rnMost of them obeyed orders, and as a result,rnthe Gaullist parties lost large chunksrnof territory they would otherwise havernheld comfortably—a brilliant politicalrnstrategy.rnThese contemptible challenges havernbeen accompanied and inspired by anrnunremitting, multilayered campaign ofrnhatred against the FN, even to the extentrnof blaming them for the destruction ofrnthe Jewish cemetery at Carpentras. It isrnno wonder that FN members say bitterlyrnthat France is a one-party state —rnalthough there are now signs that thern”respectable” right may soon split overrnattitudes to the FN.rnIt is of course immensely enjoyable tornsee the establishment horrified andrnfrightened, but it will not be toppledrnovernight. Its acolytes will use every legal,rnemotional, cultural, financial, and —rnultimately—physical weapon in its possessionrnto enforce its globalist views andrnretain its privileges. The establishmentrndoes not see this epic confrontation as arncrude battle for power, but as part of arnholy crusade against “racism,” “darkness,”rnetc. This is what makes it so ruthlessrn—and so very unpleasant. In modernrnFrance, it is all too easy to see who arernthe real haters, and which party really exemplifiesrnthe republican virtues.rn— Derek TurnerrnSCHOOL UNIFORMS are back inrnthe news. The school board of the nation’srnlargest school system, that of Nev’rnYork City, voted unanimously thisrnMarch to recommend uniforms for elementaryrnschool students. PresidentrnClinton endorsed the notion, thoughrnNorman Siegel, executive director of thernNew York City Civil Liberties Union,rnpredictably threatened to sue if any studentrnis forced to wear a uniform or ostracizedrnfor not doing so. When askedrnabout the changes that occurred inrnschools in Long Beach, California, afterrnimiforms were instituted in 1994—suspensionsrnfell dramatically and the numberrnof fights was reduced by half—Siegelrnsaid, “In Long Beach, they did a lot ofrnother things that were educationallyrnsound in addition to dress.”rnPerhaps some personal experiencerncould shed light on this debate. In 1935,rnI was student at a Transylvanian lycee.rnThe town belonged to Rumania (havingrnbeen Hungarian up to the VersaillesrnTreaty) and the schools taught in Rumanianrn(although there were sections inrnHungarian, too). We all benefited fromrnthe French lycee system that I still regardrnas the best in the world. As far as the relationshiprnbetween Rumanians andrnHungarians, it was aloof, generouslyrnsprinkled with hostility . . . like everythingrnelse in Eastern Europe, then andrnnow.rnIn 1935, a liberal politician, Petre Petrescu,rnwas assassinated in Bucharest,rnmost probably by nationalist students. Inrna matter of weeks, the government decreedrnthat henceforward all students inrnthe country must wear a uniform (by thernway, a very becoming one); it was alsorndecreed that between six and eight P.M.rnno student, in uniform or not, may walkrnthe length of the Corso, the usual promenadernof the population. Neither ofrnthese rules affected girls, so we boys werernmad that we were not allowed to escortrnthem during those precious hours.rnThe uniforms, however, we did notrnmind. First, they equalized our respectivernstates of wealth or modest conditionrn—although well-to-do boys hadrntheirs prepared from better material. Butrnnone of us minded wearing a uniform,rnand the more mature ones understoodrnthe wisdom of the government decree.rnMoreover, it was exciting to avoid detectionrnfrom six to eight, and the girls secredyrnappreciated that the boys were runningrna great risk—for them.rnEnd of stor)’. Such are my memoriesrnwhen I read about the silly cries of “humanrnrights” or that “uniforms are notrndemocratic” in our media. Their machine-rnminded authors know nothing ofrnwhat boys and girls really think. Theyrnare still children of Dr. Spock.rn—Thomas MolnarrnT H E R O C K F O R D S C H O O L S controversy,rnapproaching its tenth anniversary,rnis taking on the mythic stature of thernLittle Rock, Cleveland, and Kansas Cityrncases. While still in its infancy (as desegregationrncases go) and relatively inexpensivern(only $166 million through the endrnof the 1997-98 school year, compared torn$2 billion in Kansas City), the Rockfordrncase is notable for both the determinationrnof its opponents and the rapidityrnwith which the city is being destroyed.rnThe determination of its opponentsrnwas evident at The Rockford Institute’srnsecond annual “Rally for Rockford” atrnthe Rockford Woman’s Club in February.rnOver 500 people braved a late winterrnrainstorm to join Rockford Instituternpresident and Chronicles editor ThomasrnFleming, Congressman Don Manzullo,rnlegal scholar Stephen Presser, localrnlawyer Michael O’Brien, and threernRockford School Board members inrntheir call for an end to judicial taxation.rnDespite attempts by the local chapter ofrnthe NAACP to scuttle the rally-includingrnintimidating the school board membersrn—enthusiasm was high, as audiencernmembers sported buttons readingrn”Welcome to Occupied Rockford —rnP. Michael Mahoney, Presiding.”rnPleased with the response to hisrnspeech at the previous rally. CongressmanrnManzullo requested to be on thernprogram again, to update Rockfordiansrnon his legislative efforts to restrict thernability of judges to raise taxes. In addition,rnhe has introduced a new bill whichrnwould require federal courts to pay anyrncosts associated with a desegregationrn”master” ordered by the courts—an idearndeveloped by John Stoeffler, president ofrnthe Madison Forum, whose article, “JudicialrnTaxation: The States Respond,”rnappeared in the February 1998 issue ofrnChronicles.rnMichael O’Brien, the local attorneyrnwho represents—/jro foono — Rockford’srn16,000 tax protesters, discussed thernprogress of his suit, which is now headedrnfor the Illinois Supreme Court. Mr.rnO’Brien argued that judicial taxation resultsrnfrom the destruction of the separationrnof powers, a theme that was echoedrnby Stephen Presser, who discussed thernfederal courts’ abuse of the 14th Amendmentrnto federalize a whole range of issuesrn—from abortion to religion to educationrn—that are properly the province ofrnstates and local communities.rnFor some Rockfordians, the rally wasrntheir first opportunity to hear schoolrnboard members Ted Biondo, Patti Delugas,rnand David Strommer explain theirrnopposition to the federal court’s “remedies.”rnIn speeches that belied the localrnCannett paper’s attempt to portray themrnas “rabble-rousers” unconcerned withrneducation, the board members eloquentlyrnset forth a plan to regain localrncontiol of Rockford’s schools, and to returnrna sense of sanity to both curriculumrnand student discipline.rnThe evening was capped off byrnThomas Fleming’s rousing speech re-rn)ULY 1998/7rnrnrn