The Week.

* So we bombed a cigarette factory in Serbia. Is Hillary picking the targets?

* Bill Bradley is the lone Democrat challenging Al Gore for the 2000 presidential nomination-and he is doing it surprisingly well, for an out-of-work senator up against a sitting vice president. Bradley brings to his boomlet a reputation for brains, and his long-ago record as a Knick. But a man who has the endorsement of both Wall Street honcho Paul Volcker and left-liberal senator Paul Wellstone is not making a clear ideological case, and in the demeanor department, he and Gore are equally-yes-wooden. Bradley's strong suit is that Gore is weak. The temple fundraiser and the posturing at the expense of his family's suffering are black marks on Gore's honesty and character. Gore also shoulders all the luggage of the Clinton administration, from impeachment to Kosovo. No wonder Republicans are beginning to root for him.

* "I love New York. We have everything in New York that we have in America. I have always been very excited by the dynamism of the people here and the real cutting-edge approach." What is this? A show for tourists in the new Times Square? An ad from the old "I (c) NY" campaign, beamed back to earth by aliens who picked it up on their antennae? Neither-it is Mrs. Clinton, preparing to run for Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Senate seat. Since one problem with a Hillary campaign is that she has never lived in New York outside of hotels on campaign swings, she has to establish local bona fides (hence that unconvincing "we"). One problem with New Yorkers is that they accept such gross and empty flattery, like drunks in a bar soaking up Sinatra. Start spreading the news . . . Arkansans tolerated a lot of corruption, but were they so gullible?

* Gary Bauer, former head of the Family Research Council, is officially running for president. He is a principled conservative but a longshot candidate, and should therefore run a campaign that advances conservative causes. So, for instance, he could talk about neglected issues such as the need to rein in the imperial judiciary, to inhibit divorce, and to protect the military culture from feminists. He will certainly pressure other candidates to promise to do everything in their power to reduce and restrict abortion. An even greater service, however, would be to guide social conservatives away from certain sirens: protectionism on trade, isolationism on foreign policy, an unqualified embrace of partnerships between the churches and the welfare state. If he does that, and refrains from picking gratuitous fights with economic conservatives on issues such as Social Security, he will prove that his campaign concerns more than himself-which would put him ahead of several candidates the handicappers now prefer.

* At a March 19 news conference in the wake of revelations of Chinese spying at Los Alamos, President Clinton told reporters, "It is my understanding that the investigation has not yet determined for sure that espionage occurred." Actually, the Energy Department had concluded that Chinese espionage not only occurred but saved China years of research. At the time, however, the administration was still engaged in the delicate work of trying to ignore evidence of Chinese spying; a Los Alamos scientist kept his access to nuclear secrets nearly three years after he was identified as a suspect in the case. So the CIA was apparently leaned on to find that nothing untoward had happened-the line Clinton echoed at his news conference. Now, yet another administration report confirms the original suspicions. And Johnny Chung has told investigators that the chief of China's military intelligence gave him $300,000 to pass along to the 1996 Clinton campaign. According to Chung, the official explained, "We like your president." Wonder why.

* President Clinton's phony Social Security plan-really an accounting gimmick- was obviously designed to block tax cuts and to let him blame Republicans for not saving the program. The blame campaign has begun now that the New York Times has reported that Republicans are giving up on Social Security reform for this Congress. Actually, the House leaders have merely decided not to get behind a deeply flawed bill crafted by Republican representatives Bill Archer of Texas and Clay Shaw of Florida. (The Archer-Shaw proposal would increase Social Security's claim on tax dollars, and individuals would not be able in any meaningful sense to manage or even own the plan's "individual accounts.") It's probably just as well that the leadership will not have a bill; we're still in the let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom phase of reform. A bipartisan group of legislators including Sens. Moynihan, Kerrey, and Breaux will be introducing its own bill soon. Meanwhile, House whip Tom DeLay is preparing to launch a p.r. campaign when Republicans do endorse a plan. Great-as long as Republicans understand that gaining credibility on the issue requires that they keep their promise not to borrow from Social Security for other purposes. Kosovo should be paid for by spending cuts. Republicans unwilling to make such cuts aren't going to have the courage to take on Social Security anyway.

* Democrats are grumbling about Sen. Robert Torricelli's co-sponsorship of Republican Paul Coverdell's "Small Savers" tax-cut plan. The legislation expands the 15 percent tax bracket by $10,000, excludes the first $500 in interest and dividend income from taxes, and exempts the first $5,000 in long-term capital gains from capital-gains taxes. Torricelli's fellow Democrats are complaining that his support for this modest plan contradicts the party's claims about "reckless" tax cutting. Retorts Torricelli, "Nobody told me when I became a Democrat that that involved opposition to lower taxes." Plenty of other Democrats haven't been clued in either. According to a recent poll by John Zogby, 74 percent of likely Democratic voters support an across-the-board tax cut. At the moment it seems that there is more support for tax cuts among rank- and-file Democrats than among Republican congressmen.

* The Supreme Court is currently hearing four cases involving the Americans with Disabilities Act. One case is hailed by lawyers as Brown v. Board of Education for the disability-rights movement because it could force the public to foot the bill for moving countless mental-health patients out of institutional settings and into costlier group homes. In other cases, the court will consider whether people with high blood pressure, near-sightedness, or blindness in one eye can qualify as disabled. The sloppiness of the legislation makes such judicial lawmaking inevitable. But it is also true that liberals trying to extend the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act suffer from what Walter Olson of the Manhattan Institute calls a "reverse Lake Wobegon" complex: They want everyone to be rated below-average.

* On April 15, of all days, the IRS called Houston agent Jennifer Long in from the field. Her supervisors informed her that she had 60 days to improve her job performance or be fired. But Long had repeatedly earned "fully successful" job ratings during a 16-year career at the IRS. This stopped only when she testified, in 1997 Senate hearings, that IRS officials often fabricate evidence against the people they are investigating. Looks like that's one practice that hasn't changed.

* The biggest Y2K problem may come from lawyers trying to hold companies liable for innocent glitches. Legal Times reports that "virtually every" major law office in Washington, D.C., has set up a Y2K litigation team, and many lawyers believe those teams can keep themselves busy for years. Total liability could exceed $1 trillion. With that in mind, a bipartisan group has offered a bill to protect companies that make good-faith efforts. It would also block vague "fishing expedition" lawsuits, prevent plaintiffs who have not suffered harm from hitting the jackpot, and force lawyers to make a full disclosure of their fees to clients. Liberal Democrats oppose the measure because the trial lawyers stand to reap a windfall. This is one doomsday scenario Congress should act to prevent.

* The Atlantic Alliance's colossal 50th-anniversary summit bash was well organized and well executed-unlike the war in Kosovo, the Washington Post couldn't help noting. When Soviet Communism fell, the obsolescence of NATO was widely proclaimed. Now, as Europe enters a new century in more precarious condition than most expected, the organization that provides security is not the U.N., not the EU, not the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but NATO. Of course there are cracks in the solidarity-notably, disagreements over NATO's role outside of western Europe. But the Atlantic Alliance remains a success story of American policy. It extends our influence, unites our friends, and expands the zone of freedom. If it fails in Kosovo, it won't be the Europeans' fault. The question is not whether NATO is good for America, but whether the alliance will be discredited by the incompetence of its (American) leadership.

* The International Monetary Fund, having sped financial collapse in Indonesia and Russia, now wants to sell part of its $30 billion gold reserve to reduce the huge debt of the world's poorest nations. What's the catch? Selling billions of dollars in gold could depress prices, cutting revenue for many poor countries that count gold as a major export. When they feel the pinch, they're likely to turn to the West for more loans. But the Clinton administration insists the IMF is up to the task. If Congress approves, deputy Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers told a House panel, "the IMF would take steps aimed at ensuring that any gold sales be conducted in a manner that limits any adverse impact on gold holders, producers, and the gold market." Better call your broker.

* Under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the U.S. reserves the right to sell Taiwan weapons "of a defensive character." We know the Clinton administration interprets this as narrowly as possible, so as not to offend its friends in Beijing. Advanced theater ballistic-missile defenses are therefore excluded. Now, apparently, even defensive early-warning radars are excluded. According to the Washington Times, the administration will not let Taiwan buy some types of long-range radars that could provide warning of a Chinese missile launch. Apparently an offensive weapon is one that offends Beijing.

* A new study, reported in Science, was unable to find any "gay genes" where earlier studies had suggested they might be. Social conservatives cheered the finding, believing that it undercuts the claim that gays are "just born that way" and cannot be faulted for their choices. In truth, neither side in the culture wars should worry about what's in the science journals. An impulse can be felt as a compulsion whether it has genetic or environmental origin. Moreover, neither the origin nor the intensity of the impulse determines the morality of acting on it. The key question is whether homosexual conduct is in itself immoral. The political effects of research are not easily predicted: Proof of genetic causation of homosexuality could be used, monstrously, to facilitate the abortion of gay-leaning fetuses. Critics of the campaign to normalize homosexuality should remember that it has succeeded less because of scientific developments than because of the collapse of sexual restraint generally. We need no genetic explanation for that.

* Wayne Gretzky, known as "The Great One" since he was a child hockey phenomenon in Ontario, has retired. His career statistics were unequalled in history. He played with speed and skill, eschewing fan-pleasing brutality. In his grace he bears comparison with Michael Jordan, also recently retired, with John Elway, soon to retire, and with the universally mourned Joe DiMaggio. All led their public lives as gentlemen, and were not only admired but loved. America still recognizes the good.

Littleton I

Asking Why

The murders in Littleton, Colorado, and their grotesque perpetrators, offered a social and political Rorshach test, as legions of commentators rolled out their favorite demons to explain the tragedy.

The most popular cause was guns, with even the NRA scaling back a convention in Denver as if conceding the point. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used semiautomatic weapons, a favorite target of gun controllers, to get off quick shots. But they also relied on shotguns and homemade pipe bombs, built out of propane cylinders and crushed glass. Most important, they relied on the element of surprise, the key advantage of the violent, whether they use fists or firepower.

Runner-up in the field of possible causes was the culture. Critics had trouble deciding which subculture to blame. Early reports described the killers as fans of "Goth" music-songs about death, whose devotees favor black clothes, metal jewelry, and corpse-like makeup. Soon this was refined to industrial music (the lyrics are even more anomic, though the fans eschew makeup). Or maybe the killers were warped by the amount of time they spent online, posting homicidal webpages.

Lawmakers will feel the need to do something to prevent future Littletons. Surely school dress codes are a good idea-not only to damp the self-indulgent angst of trench-coat mafias, but also to restrain the preening of jocks. Cliques there will always be, but they do not have to set a school's tone, visual or otherwise. But good ideas-another would be to encourage production codes in the music industry-would still be good if there were never any Littleton massacres. Vain ideas, such as disarming the American populace, would still be futile even if there were a massacre every month.

Not all violence erupts from cliques. Mass movements can organize murder on a large scale, and broad social conditions can be the breeding grounds of discrete horrors. But until we find new natures, every generation must face its Littletons. Even better than the support of friends and shrinks is the wisdom of the ages, which, though offering slight support, at least will not cheat. When we discuss the problem of evil, wrote Samuel Johnson, we "imagine that we are going forward when we are only turning round. . . . All our effort ends in belief, that for the evils of life there is some good reason, and in confession, that the reason cannot be found." Bleak; but then, so, all too often, is life.

Littleton II

Murder-Spree-TV

When a student trapped in Columbine High School picked up his cellular phone and called his local NBC affiliate, KUSA-TV, the Denver station kept him on for several minutes. What was he hearing, how was he feeling? Afterward, the anchor turned to the camera and asked, philosophically, "Why would a student trapped in a school shooting call his local television station instead of 911?" The more pertinent question is, Why would a television station put a student in such a position on the air, potentially endangering his life? KUSA-TV later defended itself by saying that the 911 lines were busy and that it only meant to help. But why couldn't the station have "helped" off the air? Presumably, that would not have made good TV.

"This . . . is the first . . . interactive school shooting!" newscasters would later gush. In the days that followed, Katie Couric would speak to a Littleton student who read a farewell letter she wrote to her parents when she thought she was about to die. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, and Charles Gibson would soon follow suit, interviewing grieving parents and baffled students who shared with us their every emotion.

In 1971, Irving Kristol penned an essay in which he noted that we all agree we wouldn't broadcast around the world someone who is "dying an agonizing death." He wrote, "Now, it would be, technically, the easiest thing in the world to put a television camera in his hospital room and let the whole world witness this spectacle. We do not do it-at least we do not do it as yet-because we regard this as an obscene invasion of privacy. And what would make the spectacle obscene is that we would be witnessing the extinguishing of humanity in a human animal."

Well, now we do it. Dr. Kevorkian killing one of his "patients" makes for good TV, and so does a trapped student who may be murdered at any second. Imagine: If a door had opened and the student talking to KUSA-TV had been murdered right then and there, it would have been the first interactive school murder!

Students are not stupid, and they pay attention to what captures our attention. The repeated school massacres may have no ready explanation, but it cannot help that our media revel in them.

Three decades after his draft board came calling, Bill Clinton goes to war. What have been the defining traits of the Kosovo operation so far?

1. Speaking loudly. Madeleine Albright, as one aide put it, led her colleagues to a face-off over Kosovo "through rhetoric." Once the shooting started, Clinton was comparing Slobodan Milosevic to Hitler. It is not whitewashing Milosevic, as some anti-warriors are now doing, to point out that there are many rungs of brutality below Hitler.

2. Paltry means. NATO has committed far fewer planes to its air war than the anti-Iraq coalition fielded at the beginning of the Gulf War (400 this March, versus 2,700 in 1991). Many of NATO's sorties-80 percent of them, in the early weeks of the fighting-were directed at repeat targets, making the rubble bounce, while many of these targets-police barracks, Milosevic's party HQ, a cigarette factory-were marginal, to say the least. Under this blizzard of pinpricks, the Yugoslav army introduced 7,000 more troops into Kosovo and controls the treetop level with low-flying ground-attack planes and helicopter gunships.

3. No hard blows. Meanwhile, major targets remain untouched. NATO destroyed oil refineries in Serbia early on, but the port of Bar in Montenegro remained open to oil shipments. "We cannot tell our pilots to fly high-risk missions against petroleum storage facilities . . . and then let this other oil creep in," declared Sen. John Warner. But that is exactly what we have been doing. Only at NATO's 50th birthday celebration in Washington was it decided to search in-bound ships in the Adriatic.

4. Too many cooks. During the first week of the war, every target needed the approval of officers from each of 19 allied nations. "I've got two arms and one leg tied behind my back," NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark complained of his many kibitzers. Clark got more flexibility-but only after the shock effect of the first strike had been wasted.

5. Mixed signals. The president ruled out ground troops from the first-"I do not intend to put our troops in Kosovo to fight a war," he said on March 24-a disastrous admission, even if it was his plan all along. Know the mind of your enemy, said the Chinese military theorist Sun-Tzu; don't tell him yours, says common sense. Later on, the United States agreed to take 20,000 Kosovar refugees-why, if we are determined to restore their homes?-though Vice President Gore insisted, without much conviction, that they will be "prepared to return on short notice."

6. Side issues. In the absence of serious action, distractions flourish. NATO has been bogged down in such questions as whether it struck a civilian train or a refugee convoy. Meanwhile, the administration courts capitulation by inviting Russian mediation with Milosevic.

War by its nature encompasses surprise and failure. American troops were mauled at Kasserine Pass, shortly after they were introduced in North Africa in World War II. It took Lincoln years to find a good general. The fighting around New York from August to October of 1776 was disastrous for the Patriots. The United States surmounted these debacles on a powerful if inchoate popular sense of what was at stake, aided by articulate formulations of the cause. The administration's inability to make its case and to lead is perhaps its greatest military failure. Without a sense of purpose, we become mesmerized by the fog of war.

The ultimate reason we are adrift is that President Clinton feels he is in over his head. No doubt he is. But he had better pull himself up if he hopes to carry on to victory.

Notes & Asides

n Dear Mr. Buckley: I write in reference to your demanding an intern in exchange for running against Hillary Clinton to replace Sen. Moynihan. I fervently hope that thousands of comely women have now offered their services. But on the almost unimaginable chance that there has not been a single female candidate, then for the sake of our United States, I volunteer myself to serve as your personal love toy, if you will please oppose Ms. Rodham.

I know that you'll want to know what I look like, so my photo is enclosed. I'm in the single-stripe shirt. The man holding the rugby ball is my dear zaydeh Nyman, of blessed memory.

I'm really very bitter about your forcing me into this position. I had always hoped, were I ever to know physical intimacy, that it would be with a woman. In contrast to some I could name, however, I value America far more than my own carnal preferences. To this end, I'm trying to imagine something I would not do to keep that Medusa out of the U.S. Senate.

I envy Nathan Hale. He only had to give his life.

Reluctantly yours,

Roger P. Glass

Falls Church, Va.

Dear Mr. Glass: I'll tell you what: I'll give you up as intern, but your assignment will be to seduce the opposition. Okay?

Cordially, WFB 

n Memo to: Bill

From: Linda [Bridges]

In the unlikely event you didn't see it, here's from the April 26 Time mag, under their logo, "numbers":

"44th Position at which National Review placed owner William F. Buckley's God & Man at Yale on a list of the century's 100 best nonfiction books.

45th Position at which the magazine placed Selected Essays by T. S. Eliot."

Dear Linda: Yes, I saw it, very amusing. What made it all the more piquant was that I saw the note in Time mag before I saw it in National Review. The fruits (and the perils) of absentee ownership!

XX Bill

n Dear Bill: I think we both believe that words count. As such, I was struck by the use of the word "murder" in relation to Mr. Diallo, which appeared on page 34 of the April 19 issue of National Review.

I think John O'Sullivan's treatment of the case is excellent. I might say that I agree wholeheartedly with what he says, but I do think he vitiates his point when he describes the case as murder.

Sincerely,

Thomas L. Kempner

New York, N.Y.

Dear Tom: D'accord. There has to be mens rea to do murder, I'd say. But we can both hear the prosecutor use the word, can't we?

Cordially, Bill

n Dear William F. Buckley Jr.: Congratulations! We have reserved your name, WilliamFBuckleyJr.com, for you on our nation's "information superhighway." This is a great chance for you to have your own website for all the world to see. If you wish us to help you develop this exciting new opportunity, please contact us.

If instead you want us to transfer the domain name to you, we can do this at the amazingly low price of $200. In this way you protect yourself from those who would exploit your name without scruples.

Sincerely yours,

Craig Erb, President

21st Century Fax

San Jose, Calif.

Dear Mr. Erb: Thanks very much, but you can keep my website. I'll stick with www.nationalreview.com.

Cordially, WFB

n Dear Mr. Buckley: In reading your column recently, I noted that you included a Latin quote, Quid Jovi licet, non bovi licet, which you translate as "What is okay for the gods to do is not okay for the swine to do." My daughter and I have been learning Latin (from the Ecce Romani series), and we think it means "not okay for cattle" (swine would be porci, I think). But we applaud your using Latin, as it gives us a chance to try out our translating skills!

With best wishes,

Sue Grant

Northampton, Mass.

Dear Mrs. Grant: Glad you approve. I used "swine" instead of cattle because I think it swings better that way, if you see what I mean. By the way, it's Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi. Also by the way, I know practically no Latin. But I like to play with it every now and then. Cordially, -WFB

Al Gore's Situation

He's switched from suits to sweaters

And wears a fuzzy smile

When chatting with the matrons

Across a country stile;

But Bradley's busy digging

Like dwarfs stuck on Snow White,

While any talk of ground troops

Turns tummy muscles tight.

-W. H. von Dreele

Strategist or Dead Duck?

Couture'd in a power hat,

Albright said the Serbs would scat

Once the missiles landed (Pow!);

Now the most persistent Ow!

Comes from Clinton as the mob

Surges in with every lob.

It's a bitch amidst the gloom

Searching for some wiggle room.

-W. H. von Dreele