COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES 
RECORD PAGE   DESCRIPTION
 00001 00001
 00002 00002	\\M0BDR25\M1BDI25\M2NGR30\M3XMAS25\M4NGB25\.
 00005 ENDMK
⊗;
\\M0BDR25;\M1BDI25;\M2NGR30;\M3XMAS25;\M4NGB25;\.
\F2\CARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LABORATORY
\CCOMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT
\CSTANFORD UNIVERSITY
\CSTANFORD, CALIFORNIA 94305
\F0

To the Editor of \F1New Republic\F0:

\J	Your  movie  reviewer Stanley Kauffman describes how \F1Blood
of the Condor\F0 depicts the Peace Corps as operating  birth  control
clinics  that  secretly  sterilize  women  in  Bolivia  "to keep down
elements of the population that may eventually prove  dissident"  and
how  the Peace Corps doctors are castrated in a raid on the clinic by
the enraged population.   He remarks that the  charges  "are  as  yet
unproved"  and  goes on to call the film "a spurt of heat from a fire
that is inarguably burning throughout Latin America".  He  calls  the
film  "sharp  and unsettling", a code phrase for a film that he wants
to  promote  without  having  to  answer  for  its  truth   or   even
plausibility.

	I  am  contemplating a film that will show an evil Latin film
maker and a liberal writer making a deliberately lying film and
using  it to help organize a raid on a hospital and the castration of
the doctors.  To add viewer interest we'll throw in a scene in  which
the  two of them indulge a taste for radical politics and sex torture
on the bodies of the  innocent  Peace  Corps  girls.    Will  Stanley
Kauffman  find  my  film  "sharp and unsettling" and "a spurt of heat
from a fire that inarguably burns in the  heart  of  Middle  America"
even  though  its  charges "are as yet unproved"?   Better yet, we'll
make the writer an editor of \F1New Republic\F0 in order to give  the
Middle Americans something concrete to focus on.\.

					Sincerely yours,



					John McCarthy