poli-sci (05/25/82)
>From JoSH@RUTGERS Tue May 25 12:40:48 1982
Poli-Sci Digest Tue 25 May 82 Volume 2 Number 136
Contents: Shades of ...
Leftists Agonistes (3 msgs)
Argumentation
Atom Bombs (2 msgs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 23 May 1982 16:46:01-PDT
From: allegra!phr at Berkeley
Subject: Moral Majority giving morality a bad name?
I heard on the radio that Jerry Falwell's book, now titled "Wake Up,
America" or some such drivel, was originally going to be called
"My Struggle" (which has already been used). How can this be
substantiated, if it's true?
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1982 2154-EDT (Friday)
From: Hank Walker at CMU-10A
Subject: loyalty checks in the Agriculture dept.
Today's NYT has a story that says that Secretary Block just found out about
the whole thing due to the uproar among the scientists who were subject to
the loyalty test. He disavowed the whole thing, and they were supposedly
looking for the high official whose idea it was in the first place.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1982 03:19-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Date: 20 May 1982 12:11-EDT
From: Bern Niamir <BERN>
[Message from me about how much better individual rights fare in
this country than in most of the rest of the world. - Jim Cox]
If the rest of the world thrives on dictatorship and repression, do
we have to condone it at home? This market mentality (we have the
better product, you have to buy it though you are being ripped
off) is utterly inexcusable when it comes to human rights. And
the rest of the world includes France, Scandinavia, etc. which we
stil have a long way to go to just catch up.
I never advocated condoning dictatorship or repression either at home
or abroad. I simply pointed out that, in considering the state of
individual freedom here, we should keep in mind the state of the rest
of the world. It is terribly easy, after dwelling on the many
problems in this country, to lose one's perspective (see my comments
below).
As for France's supposed superiority in freedom to this country,
apparently you have never seen any French television news broadcasts.
If you had, you would realize that "freedom of the press," at least in
television, is not at all the same thing there as it is here. Under
President Giscard d'Estaing, state-owned French television was little
more than a mouthpiece for the government. Mr. Mitterrand has done
little better. And property rights, the most basic of freedoms, have
been much-abused by the Socialists' ambitious nationalization program.
Not only the institutions are imperfect, they are structurally
wrong. If I write an operating system in BASIC and it falters
(which it will), should I attribute the failure to bugs in the
code or the wrong choice of programming language?
Here I think we have an example of someone who has lost his
perspective. Apparently because of what he sees as endemic repression
in our system, Bern Niamir has concluded that our institutions are
"structurally wrong." Why don't you take a look around the world, Mr.
Niamir? I think you'll find, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, that
our (western) institutions are the worst possible ones, except for all
the others.
You started saying that conservatives were harassed by the
government.
I did? Where did you get that?
Now you are apologizing for its systematic harrassment of leftists
and others with unpopular beliefs. This second position is much
closer to reality.
I am not apologizing. While it is true that many groups, left and
right, have been harrassed by the government, these cases are \not/
that widespread. Even if the government has been guilty of all the
harassment claimed by some people on this list, the groups that have
been harassed constitute a small minority of all such political
groups. And in most cases, even those who have been harassed have
eventually found satisfaction either through the courts or through
more enlightened legislative or executive officials.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1982 0547-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: left/right
People who think that the KKK and the Nazi party have NOT been harassed by
the FBI, local police, etc... are off their rockers. Or don't they remember
the civil rights movements of the 50's and 60's (which they seem to recall in
other contexts)? The occupation of towns and whole COUNTIES by national
guard units from out of state? Massive infiltration by the FBI of the KKK,
leading to mass trials (some leading in turn to convictions, others not -
until they were moved out of the south so that a jury of "peers" could bring
in the government demanded verdict).
I personally find the KKK and Nazi party detestable, but that does not cloud
my mine to the fact that they have been persecuted by the government (usually
the national government) quite a bit. Perhaps people are ignoring this
because they agree with the results of the persecution? If that's the case,
then you've made your bed.... better stay in it when the FBI comes charging
in to disrupt your latest leftist meeting or event.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1982 1342-EDT
From: Tim <WEINRICH at RUTGERS>
Subject: Argumentation
Date: 21 May 1982 04:58-EDT
From: David A. Levitt <LEVITT at MIT-MC>
Subject: Dishonest arguments
I distinguish "arguing to win" from "arguing to teach and
learn", and I try to restrict my own discussions to the latter.
I think it is clear to the most casual reader that the vast majority
of letters published in this digest are "arguments to win". (If your
own letters have been exceptions, you neednt take this personally.)
Since all the complaints that have previously been made about this
tendency have gone ignored, I suspect there is little anyone can do to
change it. Personally, I continue reading this list because, in the
midst of all the flaming, occasionally some reasonable facts and
opinions get presented. Occasionally...
Twinerik
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1982 1913-EDT
From: Bill Hofmann <G.WDH at MIT-EECS>
Subject: Atomic Cafe
Atomic Cafe is a collection of post-WWII propaganda-type films about
atomic weapons, the Soviet threat and civil defense (Duck and Cover!).
It just opened in Boston at the Sack Beacon Hill (next to Govt Center).
It's fun and interesting, and I'd recommend that you see it if you have
the chance.
-Bill
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 1982 0608-PDT
From: Jim McGrath <CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE>
Subject: H & N Atom bomb attacks
The US was committed to a strategy of total and complete conquest of the
Axis powers (for a variety of reasons - all of them understandable and
most reasonable). We did NOT have any choice but to invade or drop an
atomic bomb, hope for the best, and THEN probably invade.
Remember, in retaking some rather small islands, defended by a few tens
of thousands of troops who were totally isolated, in territory not
remotely considered to be ones homeland, we paid a horrible price (Iwo
Jima, a scant eight square miles in area, cost the US 24,891 casualties;
Owkinawa cost us over 49,000 casualties). It is perfectly believable
that invading Japan itself could cost us a million men - the damage to
the islands itself would make Japan look like a butcher shop.
Instead, we droped two bombs that cost Japan less than 10% of the projected
MILITARY (not civilian) casualties for them if we had invaded. The
Japanese might have been cowered by a weapon that enabled us to destroy
a city with one plane instead of hundreds (remember Dreszen (sp?)), but
they may not have. Indeed, the peace party had a HELL of a hard time
driving out the hawks even WITH 2 atom bomb attacks on major cities.
Quite frankly, the Japanese displayed a tremendous amount of pride and
stubbornness during the war - and no one appreciated that better than the
US military which suffered for it. No one was going to make the potentially
diasterous mistake of underestimating the capacity of Japan to resist an
invasion - not with MILLIONS of lives in the balance.
Atom bombing Japan was not a nice thing to do - but war is not nice.
It was the correct decision, saved millions of lives, and was, quite
frankly, cheap at the price.
Jim
------------------------------
End of POLI-SCI Digest
- 30 -
-------