EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, Jr.rnMANAGING EDITORrnScott P. RichertrnART DIRECTORrnH. Ward SterettrnDESIGNERrnMelanie AndersonrnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrnKatherine Dalton, Samuel Francis,rnGeorge Garrett, Paul Gottfried,rn].0. Tate, Michael Washburn,rnClyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrnBill Kauffman, Donald Livingston,rnWilliam Mills, William Murchison,rnAndrei Navrozov, Jacob NeusnerrnFOREIGN AFFAIRS EDITORrnSrdja TrifkovicrnLEGAL AFFAIRS EDITORrnStephen B. PresserrnRELIGION EDITORrnHarold O.J. BrownrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnThe Rockford InstituternPUBLIGA riON DIRECTORrnGuy C. ReffettrnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnCindy lAnkrnA publication of The Rockford Institute.rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn928 Nortli Main Street, Rockford, IE 6110?.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (81 5) 964-5813.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris. 11,61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc., One Media Way, 12406 Rt. 250rnMilan, Ohio 44848-9705rnCopyright © 1999 b’ ‘Lhe Rockford Institute.rn;A11 rights rcsered.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for S39.00 (foreign subscriphons add S12rnfor surface deliver}’, $48 for Air Mail) per ear byrnThe Rockford Institute, 928 North Main Sheet,rnRockford, IE 61103-7061. Preferred periodicalrnpostage paid at Rockford, IE and additional mailingrnoffices. POSTMASTER: Send addressrnchanges to Chronidea, P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IE 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles arc thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of Tlie Rockford InsHhite or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernrehirncd unless accompanied by a .self-addressedrnstamped enelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.23, No. 11 Novcinber 1999rnPrinted in tlic Uniled States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Canadian PoliticsrnGreg Kaza’s article on Canadian Red Toxyrnand former prime minister Brian Mulroneyrn(“Bush’s Red Tory,” Vital Signs,rnAugust) was well informed and insightfulrnalmost throughout. But near the end,rnMr. Kaza erroneously stated that ReformrnParty leader Preston Manning “has no intentionrnof abandoning his conservativernbase.” hi fact, he already has. Except forrnone issue —government spending andrnthe related areas of taxation, deficit, andrndebt—the Manning party is barely distinguishablernfrom Canada’s others.rnFormer supporters differ on when thernReform Party went off the rails. Forrnsome, it was during the 1997 federal electionrncampaign, when Reform joined thernstatus quo parties in refusing to discussrnimmigration. Since then, Manning hasrnmade it his priority to merge Reform withrnthe Red Tories of the Progressive Conservativesrnto create a new group called UnitedrnAlternative, which he desperatelyrnhopes will be acceptable to corporaterndonors and the Toronto media. Typicalrnof this supposed populist’s leadershiprnstyle. Manning threatens to expel ReformrnMPs who oppose the plan. Consequently,rnthe party is on the verge of splitting.rnThis project has so preoccupied Manningrnthat he has had little to say aboutrnanything else, except to proclaim hisrnwholehearted support for Canada’s participationrnin bombing the Serbs.rnSome Canadians say this is a disappointingrnend to a party that once heldrnpromise. Others say the part}”s directionrnwas apparent soon after its founding inrn1987. But it would take an extreme optimistrn—or a liberal—to say that Manningrnhas done Canadian politics any good.rn— Greg KleinrnCalgary, AlbertarnOn Military ReadinessrnFd like to commend Christopher Checkrnon his great piece “Not Ready, Aim, Misfire”rn(August). It was superb and right onrnthe mark.rnI subscribe to the Marine CorpsrnTimes, which is mainly aimed at activedutyrnMarines. Mostiy, the Times is concernedrnwith this benefit and that benefit.rnand just how to get them all. I won’t resubscribe;rnit depresses me.rnMy remembrance of the “old” Corpsrnis one of fondness because of the lack ofrn”benefits.” I cannot remember even onern”benefit.” I think the primary reason wernjoined up in those days (World War II)rnwas because of patriotism. We sure werernnot in it because of whatever “benefits”rnwe could receive.rnMr. Check’s report that the Navyrnthinks it can make its 22,000 vacanciesrnmore attractive by installing shipboardrnTV sets and e-mail facilities says a lotrnabout today’s potential “fighting men.” Irncan remember when the ladies firstrn”came aboard.” The only order of thernday was: “No fraternizing on base.” If anyrnof those women Marines ever got pregnantrnor complained of “sexual harassment,”rnI sure don’t remember it.rnThe revelation that today’s Corpsrnspends more money on child-developmentrncenters and family housing than itrndoes on ammunition is no surprise to me:rnIt’s all in the Marine Corps Times. Thernlast line of the Kipling poem that Mr.rnCheck quoted hit it right on the button:rn”If you want to win your battles take an’rnwork your bloomin’ guns.” It’s hard tornimagine today’s GIs “workin’ theirrnbloomin’ guns.”rn^Ralph WillisrnHemet, CArnRegarding Christopher Check’s articlernon the lack of recruits in the U.S. military:rnAyn Rand may have said somernthings that Chronicles readers wouldrnfind hard to swallow, but I remember onernobservation she made to the effect thatrnfreedom would never lack for people tornfight for it. Maybe this is the core of thernU.S. military’s problem.rn—Wilma J. MoorernSanta Rosa, CArnVisit Chroniclesrnon the Webrnwww.chroniclesmagazine.orgrnand send your lettersrnto the editor [email protected]/CHRONICLESrnrnrn