(FORTUNE Magazine) – In which the present writer continues for some reason to propound long-winded interrogatories, the answers to which everybody knows, or if not we are in even bigger trouble than previously postulated. Now that Fidel has opted for logical consistency, meaning that he is not merely urging other Latin debtors to get together and default on their loans to Western banks but is reportedly declining to meet some of his own country's scheduled loan payments, will the Credit Lyonnais, which has been a principal negotiator for the victims, humbly acknowledge that maybe Americano ideologues were making a certain amount of sense when the U.S. Treasury barred American banks from lending to Cuba? Having just gamely overridden an intense insurance industry lobbying campaign and voted unanimously for an antidiscrimination bill that would bar extra-high premiums for prospective policyholders known to be infected with the AIDS virus, will the Washington, D.C., City Council now show equivalent sensitivity for such other well-known victims of bias as heavy smokers and cancer victims? Given the unending Soviet gripes about how Western media are maliciously overstating the problems at Chernobyl, would it be churlish to refresh the people's memory about what the Muscovites said at the time of Three Mile Island, when Soviet broadcasts carried on about carelessness and greed in U.S. energy monopolies and Tass reported that ''thousands of panic-stricken people'' were fleeing the area? With the General Accounting Office having now weighed in on Mike Deaver, and said that Mike may have naughtily used his White House clout to promote Canada's interests at a time when he was maybe eyeing the aforesaid neighbor to the north as a future P.R. account, can it be long before the present writer finally comes across the thought he has been looking for in either the New York Times or Washington Post, to wit, that the end product of these putative shenanigans was a joint U.S.-Canadian statement received as gospel at both papers because it confirmed their own prejudices about acid rain being a problem we had to act on now? Will F. Lee Bailey come out in favor of ''imperialism'' and being ''paternalistic,'' both of which were rejected by federal judge John F. Keenan in the course of explaining why compensations for victims of the Bhopal disaster should be awarded in Indian rather than U.S. courts, or will Lee come up with a nobler reason for getting his trial in the country where they put the higher price on life?