JoSH@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (JoSH) (10/05/85)
Poli-Sci Digest Sat 05 Oct 85 Volume 5 Number 38
Contents: Comments
Military Responsible for Technology?
Nicaragua
A New Privileged Class?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Sep 85 19:09 EDT (Thu)
From: _Bob <Carter@RUTGERS>
Subject: Misuse of editorial privilege
From: Tim <WEINRICH at RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
To: Poli-Sci at MIT-MC
Personally, I have nothing against your addendums. I find them
bearable at worst, useful and enlightening at best. But I'd like to
point out that they are probably self-defeating.
This digest has gotten itself a reputation for having a
libertarian bias.
Hi Tim,
I think you're wrong: I like what JoSH does, although I
certainly don't agree with what he says nearly as much as you do.
It depends on what you think digesting should be, I guess. If it
is no more than a mechanical way of reducing net overhead, then he
should just bunch messages up and send them out. The result would be
a completely random digest in which people would talk off into a
vacuum and address each other, if at all, in successive issues. The
SPACE digest does this, and I think it is pretty thin stuff.
JoSH talks back to people, he encourages people to have long
sidebar wars so he can edit these exchanges and put them in the
digest, he nudges people to contribute. In effect, he edits a
political journal. You can't have a political journal without a
strong organizing ideology. The form just won't work that
way. Like you, I read a number of such journals, edited from a
variety of points of view, and have come around to thinking that it
really does not matter what the editor's particular hobby horse is,
so long as he has one and is smart and funny about it.
Sure JoSH and POLI-SCI are biased. Also, idiosyncratic,
infuriating, and often wrong. But almost always pungent and fun to
read. I think we ought to push JoSH to keep it that way.
_B
------------------------------
Date: Friday, 27 September 1985 11:54:50 EDT
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: editorial comments and subject matter
Apparently if you hang around long enough, old arguments get recycled, even
on digests. This editorial privelege discussion occurred a few years back,
with the conclusion that only 1 or 2 people didn't like the comments, and
they would post a little blurb at the end of their message "Do not append to
this message." That seemed sufficient.
Out of curiosity Josh, how many people on Poli-Sci are founding readers?
For those who aren't, Poli-Sci was founded to spin off a discussion on
electoral methods that arose on Human-Nets after the 1980 election. I have
noticed that as time goes by, less and less of the discussion seems to be
about political philosophy (libertarian, liberal, conservative, or
otherwise), political science, or public policy questions with facts, and
more about plain old politics with no facts. While it is clearly impossible
to discuss philosophy in a vacuum (what good would it be), much of the
political discussion is unenlightening, particularly foreign policy
discussions (guess which one). But then I guess I should be glad we haven't
had an abortion discussion lately.
P.S. The reason that a lot of liberals disappeared from this list is that
someone formed a Progress (progressive) digest and they moved out (don't
know if it still exists).
[As far as I know, PROG-D does still exist. There are 139 addresses
on the Poli-sci list, of which about 10 are bboards. I have made
over 400 changes in the list since taking it over--so there's no
way to know how many founding members we have left. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 85 18:52:47 PDT
From: Hibbert.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: Re: "SDI/AI/Free and open Debate" in AIList Digest V3 #128
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 85 19:44:48 PDT
From: Richard K. Jennings <jennings@AEROSPACE.ARPA>
Subject: SDI/AI/Free and open Debate
... For those interested in the history of technology, most of the
things we take for granted (microelectronics, automobiles, planes,
interstate highway system) were gestated and field tested by the
US Military. ...
If you are willing to stay off the interstate higways, the
inland waterways, airplanes and other fruits of technology ripened
by close association (computers, and computer networks as has been
pointed out) -- worry about the military and AI and SDI. But upon
close inspection, I think it is better that the military have the
technology and work the bugs out on trivial things like autonomous
tanks BEFORE it is an integral part of an artificial life support
system.
Agreed, the military was responsible for most of the advances you cite.
This doesn't do anything towards convincing me that that's the only
possible way for that outcome to have come about, or even that better
things wouldn't have happened in the absence of all the money going for
these obstensively military purposes.
As a matter of fact, given my belief that ends NEVER justify means, I
don't even agree that having those things is good. (Considering that
people who didn't consent were forced to help pay for them)
P.S. Why do you think field debugging of autonomous tanks will be less
costly/dangerous than of artificial life support systems? In neither
case will all the bugs be found in simulations and I'd expect
programmers to do better debugging in the midsts of doctors practicing
than in the middle of a tank battle.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 85 10:33:22 PDT
From: upstill%ucbdegas@Berkeley.EDU (Steve Upstill)
[ So, what are...[Nicaragua's large]...forces for, anyway?
...JoSH ]
An excellent question, one which has much troubled me. You, JoSH,
seem to feel that since there is no plausible explanation for their
numbers, they must be for attacking their neighbors. Logically, this is
an unsound implication. You also feel that they would be useless in
defending against a determined attack by the United States; why then are
you so enthusiastic about their utility in attacking nations which the
US would surely leap to defend?
Sadly, I have to come to the conclusion that the militaristic nature
of the Nicaraguan state is the result of a paranoid mentality on the
part of the leadership. But as has been pointed out to me before, just
because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. And
the US is surely out to get Nicaragua. In their more lucid moments,
conservatives will tell you that yes, the embargo will first and primarily
hurt the population of Nicaragua rather than the government (this is also
true of the contra war), but that that's okay because we make a distinction
between friends and enemies; this is the way we treat an enemy.
The simple fact is that the most powerful nation in the world is fuming
with hostility at a tiny, bankrupt but proud (read, uncooperative) neighbor.
Not being saints, the leadership has responded to this threat the way all
nations have responded to similar situations: with desperate militarism
and nationalism.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: 1 Oct 1985 11:06-EST
Subject: Re: Nicaraguan armed forces
From Josh:
The forces in Nicaragua at the same time
(a) much larger --in absolute terms-- than necessary to protect
itself from its geographic neighbors, and (b) useless against a
determined invasion by the US, should such occur.
-----
Maybe they need them to fight againt the thousands of contras on their
borders?
------------------------------
Date: 3 Oct 85 11:23 PDT
From: sybalsky.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Subject: A New Privileged Class?
How many times have you seen articles like the following one? (taken
from today's Oakland, CA Tribune)
Marijuana Task Force Sparks
Fear, Anger in Canyon Raid
Canyon, CA -- Marijuana raiders in camouflaged SWAT suits, armed with
automatic rifles, shotguns, and chain saws and assisted by two police
helicopters swooped through this secluded hillside hamlet yesterday in
a Rambo-style operation that scared, then enraged its citizenry.
"I believe in enforcing the law, but this was all wrong," said George
Menge, longtime Canyon civic doer and former military investigator.
"My daughter was scared to death," Menge said. Alana Menge, 22, was
heading down their one-way private driveway with her infant when
approoaching officers brandishing guns shouted at her "to get out of the
way."
The raiders, a 35- to 50-man force from the Contra Costa County Drug
Task Force, swept through the town of 250 and combed the rugged, woodsy
hillsides for nearly eight hours.
Their yield was about 100 marijuana plants with an estimated street
value of about $50,000. There were no arrests.
"They crawled on their bellies around peoples' gardens, trampled
through yards, peeked in windows, scared the old folks, women and kids,
and generally acted obnoxious," said one eye-witness who asked not to be
identified.
Janet Westlin, a 10-year resident of the sylvan-canyon community in
the hills nestled between Oakland and Moraga, said she wasn't as scared
as she was furious.
She was sitting outside Canyon's new post office. "I had two little
kids who were trying to play, and I was concerned about them. This is
a big drag."
The post office was the rendezvous point for the task force team of
vice officers from the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department, the federal
Drug Enforcement Agency, state narcotic agents, representatives from
police departments throughout Contra Costa and two officers from the
Oakland Police Department.
At about 9:30 they drove up in individual cars, according to
Postmistress Mandy Bratt, then changed into camouflage suits and flak
jackerts, strapped on guns, and took off in vans and four-wheel cdrive
vehicles.
"They looked scary to me. I feel fear when I see guns like that.
They came across as seeming kind of intense," Bratt said.
Two helicopters hovered overhead, then acted as guides to what the
raiders later found were five marijuana patches, with plants 5 to 6 feet
high nearly ready for harvest.
The task force, headed by Sg. Ray Rodriques of the Contra Costa
Sheriff's Department, earlier had obtained three "outdoor" search
warrants.
But a Canyon resident, whose photos of the operation were confiscated
by one officer, said the squad gave the impression they had a blanket
warrant "to search the whole damn town."
Officers at the scene refused to talk to reporters. Rodriques did not
return calls by The Tribune, and sheriff's office spokespersons said
there would be no comment last night. "You'll have to call tomorrow,"
they said.
Many residents said they were upset with what they called the invasion
force.
"They've obviously had Rambo visions in their head," one said. "They
were abusive, rude, and used four-letter words. It was almost high
comedy, pulling out big guns to sqaush a little flea."
Menge, a civilian investigator for the Navy before retiring 12 years
ago, said there are ways to enforce the law. "But you don't start a
war, or look like you're going to start one. I believe in the law, but
this was overkill.". . . .
- - - -
I see a very disturbing trend developing in this country, of which the
above article is typical. In short, there is a new privileged class
developing in this country.
It's a class that is allowed to use force with impunity, to invade
peoples' property without cause, and to harrass any citizen who dares
take steps against them. They are, in short, the police. Read that
article again. Can you imagine the outcry if a private group tried the
following tricks?:-
--Tramping up your driveway, ordering you out of the way at gunpoint?
--Searching your property--again at gunpoint--without a warrant, and
without identifying themselves?
--Siezing your camera, because you were taking photos of them as they
did their dirty work?
More to the point, can you imagine what would have happened to any
homeowner stupid enough to order them off his property--and to try to
defend himself if they refused?
Let me head off some responses at once: This is not a generalized
polemic against police officers--many of them (most!) do a difficult job
as best they can, and do it well. Rather, I'm objecting to a collection
of attitudes I see developing in the country, which I think are
dangerous:
--If it's a police officer's word against mine, he wins
--It's OK for police to run around brandishing weapons (a felony in
California for you and me, by the way).
--We should leave crime control to the police--after all, they're the
ones who know best.
--I don't need to be armed, the police will defend me.
--If an unarmed civilian, face-down on the street is shot in the head
by a policeman, it was an accident (This has been the finding in at
least 3 cases in the last 3 years in California that I know of).
--If you're carrying a gun, the police may stop you at gunpoint and
inspect the gun to make sure you're carrying it legally. Without cause.
This is the law in California.
--Police are never punished for overstepping their bounds: Want to bet
on how many homeowners in Canyon collect damages over this incident?
In short, police can do no wrong, and we should place ourselves at their
mercy. Power corrupts, and the lack of discipline among drug agents in
California shows that power IS corrupting them. People in Mendocino
county have had to go to Federal court to get orders barring DEA agents
and State police from barging in on them unannounced--armed to the
teeth. Surely they already knew that's a no-no in this society?
How did this attitude arise? I think it stems from a long period of
increasing reliance on the professional police ath the citizen's shield
against crime. Over about the past 70 years, Americans have been
content to rely more and more on the police to protect them. This in
turn has led to an increasing assumption by police of a monopoly on the
power to perform this function: Bureaucracies defend themselves by
gaining political monopolies on the power to perform some service. This
is happening with the police as well. Among the outgrowths of this are
laws making the possession of arms illegal to the normal citizen, making
it illegal for you to use force in defending yourself in your home (this
IS the law in a couple of states--you have to retreat), and an
increasing belief by officers that they may do whatever they feel is
needed to "protect society from those bastards".
The result? Skyrocketing crime, and a parallel rocketing of civilian
complaints against individual officers for overstepping their nominal
bounds. But God help the citizen who tries to do something for himself
about either!
Can this attitude go on? No. Even today, police are finding that they
can't do the job alone. They are HAVING to enlist community support, in
the form of Neighborhood Watch programs and the like--in the end, a
citizen's first line of defense against crime must be the citizen
himself. Progressive communities like Oakland and Berkeley--and
less-progressive ones like New York--find that the police resist
mightily any attempt to make them accountable for their actions: Again
and again, police unions fight civilian-review boards, and keep up
running dogfights with them once they're created. Communities explode
(as in Miami) when a policeman happens to "goof" at the wrong time and
shoot some obviously harmless person.
What's the solution? I don't know. I am, however, sure that part of it
lies in peoples' taking back responsibility for their own safety from
the authorities. Police can't be everywhere--can't prevent your getting
mugged--can't help you if your husband starts to beat you up. A return
to more self-reliance would, I think, both lower the crime rate (it has
everywhere it's been tried), and lead to a better balance between
citizen and officer (no evidence here, just gut feel--partnership is a
better basis for a relationship than dependency).
Comments?
--John
[I would, if anything, try to make the warning sharper. The reason
is that many people might try to pass it off with an "it can't happen
here" attitude. But it not only can, it will: In most of the world,
in most of history, it has been a tale of the cossacks and the serfs.
Even in ancient Athens, two-thirds of the people were slaves. Under
the Roman legions, under the feudal lords, the people took what the
rulers gave them, and liked it. Or else. Freedom, liberty, the
right to live your life unmolested by the duly constituted authorities,
is an historical aberration. Remember, folks, the Roman Empire came
*after* the Republic. Sic transit gloria mundi. --JoSH]
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------