poli-sci (08/10/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Mon Aug 9 23:39:14 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 10 Aug 82 Volume 2 Number 162
Contents: LaRouche etc (2 msgs)
Bechtel etc (2 msgs)
Proposition 8
Amendment 2
Mass Murder (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 1982 1017-EDT
From: PDL at MIT-XX (P. David Lebling)
re: "Hamiltonians"
Probably Smith only was down on Hamiltonians in the classical Hamilton
vs. Jefferson split. I.e., Hamilton wanted a strong central government
and Jefferson wanted a centralized nation consisting of independent
farmers. (This is a simplification, but it should be obvious where a
Libertarian writer's sympathies would fall).
re: Lyndon LaRouche and the U.S. Labor Party
He's my favorite political crazy. Indeed, back in the old days the
USLP was left-wing, and published a newspaper called something like
"Solidarity". The story I heard is that the USLP started informing on
other left-wing organizations (to the FBI). At about that time, the
USLP committed ideological wraparound and became right-wing. Their
major policies (support of fusion power, expropriation of the Rockefellers)
haven't changed. Back when they started, both those planks could fit
either a left or right party. There was a "wonderful" half-hour show
starring LaRouche during the New Hampshire primary season in 1980.
The man came across as a plausible technocrat in the way that many
politicians can (that is, if you knew nothing about the subject he
sounded like he knew something). He has a chilling, snakelike
personality, though.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: 9 Aug 1982 0705-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Fascists
Reply to Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Why do you call Lyndon Larouche a facist (and three times at that)?
While I admit he is off the mainstream, I do not understand. Such
schemes as exploding H-bombs underground in order to generate power
(which is actually realistic), or his opposition to Jane Fonda and
here assorted kooks, are hardly signs of facism (unless there are a
lot of facists in this country).
Jim
[If I may be pardoned for tacking this on thus informally: Webster's
defines "fascism" as: "A political [philosophy] that exalts nation
and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized
autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic
and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
By this definition, LaRouche more or less fits. My friend inveighed
heavily against the free market (it was a device intended to ruin our
industrial capacity, foisted on us by Milton Friedman and Adam Smith,
both pawns of the British Oligarchy), and argued for almost military
actions against the drug trade. Oddly enough, Fonda, Hayden, and the
CED are also fascist by this definition. --JoSH]
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 1982 12:44:18-EDT
From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX
Subject: nuclear power & weapons
To Rick McGeer: "Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons"?!?
Where have you been the last few years? Remember the Israeli bombing of Iraq's
reactor, or the fuss over India's [alleged] misuse of nuclear fuel? What
magazine has been lying to \you/?
As for Habib being a dedicated public servant working without pay, this
is another canard. He happens to be receiving enough \pay/ (i.e., not
[dividends]) that the government couldn't give him a salary without pushing
him over the maximum salary receipts allowed a government employee, from
a company (or companies?) that demand so little of him that he has time to
screw around in the Middle East. (Granted, other US people may have screwed
him up.)
------------------------------
Date: 9 Aug 1982 0631-PDT
From: Jim McGrath (The Moderator) <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Schultz and his confirmation
I hardly think that Schultz would have been "open to embarrassing
attack" on the issues mentioned in the summary of an article in \In
These Times/ sent in by David Mankins <dm at BBN-RSM>. How anyone can
possibly condone Bechtel's close relations with various Arab nations
is beyond me. Suppose that Schultz was personally responsible for
these relationships (something he would deny, and rightly so). So he
is on good terms with the arabs. Does that leave him open to
"embarrassing attack?" If so, then most politicians, and any good
ones, should also be so "attacked," especially those who religiously
support Israel.
An even more embarrassing issue was introduced by Sen. Alan
Cranston (D-Ca.). Bechtel, which builds nuclear power plants
around the world, played an important role in trying to
prevent the Ford administration from stopping West Germany's
sale of plutonium and reprocessing equipment to Brazil in
1975. Cranston revealed a letter from a Bechtel official to
the Brazilian government offering to sell the fuel if West
Germany could not--actions that placed Bechtel squarely in
opposition to the official U.S. attempt to halt nuclear
proliferation.
Say again? That makes no sense at all. Obviously someone in Bechtel,
seeing that the West Germans may not be able to deliver, wanted the
sale. If there was any sort of concerted action in Bechtel (which
there obviously had to be if Schultz was getting personally involved
with someone elses sale) would not it make sense for them to SUPPORT
the Ford administration in trying to kill the West German sale? This
paragraph, more than anything else, demonstrates that the authors had
absolutely no idea of how Bechtel is run, or even how business in
general is run.
If anything, the authors should be open to an "embarrassing attack."
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 1982 10:15 PDT
From: Sybalsky at PARC-MAXC
Subject: California's "Proposition 8"
On the June primary ballot, there was an initiative, put forth by
Robert Gann of Prop 13 fame. It was popularly known as the "Victim's
Bill of Rights." Briefly, it was an attempt to tilt the judicial
scales a bit against the criminal defendant -- in reaction to the
recent tendency by the courts to give suspects every consideration.
It was a mass of ill-conceived panaceas, and most of its parts
are probably unconstitutional (thank Heaven!):
--The state constitution was amended to make "safe, peaceful" schools
an inalienable right of the students. No clue on how this is to be
enforced.
--Preventive detention for any suspect when the judge thinks there is
any possibility that he'll be a danger to the community.
--"All relevant evidence" is to be permitted at trials. This is taken
to mean that a criminal's past history can be shown to the jury, even
tho it is (logically) irrelevant to the question of whether he
committed the crime or not.
--Victims will have the right to be compensated by their victimizers
for any damage done. This was already the case, but rarely was the
avenue taken. Nothing in Prop 8 will make it easier or anything. This
was the big selling point used in publicity.
--The exclusionary rule was explicitly done to death (the rule that the
gov't can't make use of things that it obtains illegally). This was
the second big selling point: "Why should the courts be allowed to let
violent criminals off on a technicality?" Since this is grounded in
the Federal consititution, this one will probably fall. In only about
3% of all cases is the exclusion issue even raised. Only about 20% [as
I recall--I may be wrong] of such cases actually result in exclusion.
That's all of it that I can remember off-hand; there was a lot more.
In sum, it was an emotional reaction to the wrong parts of the
problem, and will [says the oracle here] have little effect on
California's crime rate.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Aug 1982 10:38 PDT
From: Sybalsky at PARC-MAXC
Subject: Second Amendment -- an Individual or Collective right?
The Senate Subcommittee on the Consitiution has been spending some time
researching the Second Amendment, and the question of whether the "right of
the people to keep and bear arms" was intended to be a personal right, or to
provide for an organized militia.
Their conclusion seems to be that it was an individual right
-- after looking at the writings of the people who drew the amendment,
and at the debate that ensued. They also note that the Supreme Court
has never ruled on this issue, but in the Dred Scott case said that to
allow blacks to be considered citizens would "give them full liberty
of speech in public and private...to hold public meetings upon
political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Hmmm.
The subcommittee's report is available from the Gov't Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, for $5.00. Ask for stock number 052-070-05686-0.
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 5 Aug 1982 09:30-PDT
SUBJECT: Letter to Manachem Begin
From: norm at RAND-UNIX
I sent the following letter to Manachem Begin:
As a Jew of the diaspora and as a citizen-in-exile of Israel I beg you to
stop the killing. On behalf on the six million I beg you to stop the
killing. On behalf of all those who have died and sacrificed for Israel I beg
you to stop the killing. On behalf of the uncompromisable love of truth,
justice and mercy that is the hallmark of our people, I beg you to stop the
killing. For the sake of our children and our children's children I beg
you to stop the killing. Because it is alienating friends of Israel
everywhere I beg you to stop the killing. Because it violates the
admonitions of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob I beg you to stop the
killing.
Norman Shapiro
------------------------------
Date: 9 Aug 1982 0654-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <JPM at MIT-AI> <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: Nuking third world nations
In reply to Bill Hofmann <WDH at MIT-MC>
True, the elites of most third world nations have become wealthier at
a rate higher than most of the rest of the people in their nations.
But that STILL does not show that the poorest people are worse off -
because they are not. Unfortunately for all those haters of the US,
multinationals, technology, etc..., people are better off now than they
have ever been before. This is not to say things are great - but they
have NEVER been great. And it des not mean that things could not be
better. But the "system" has worked quite well up to now, better than
anything else.
As for nuclear threats against third world nations, what people are
really objecting to are STRATEGIC attacks. Afterall, it makes no
difference if your civilians are killed by nuclear or conventional
bombs. I would say that nuking Korea or Vietnam probably would have
SAVED lives by shortening the wars there. We did not do so primarily
because of the international consequences (in Korea we were fighting
an obvious proxy war; in Vietnam we also had to worry about our
allies).
Jim
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------