[Editor’s Note: In publishing the following, we insist that our standards are not lower than those of the Examiner, merely different.]

July 26, 2000

The only thing revealed by former Republican Senator John Danforth's "government not guilty" finding in the Waco case is his own lack of credibility.

The "federal jury" in the wrongful death civil trial (the first "exoneration") consisted not of the usual 12 randomly chosen citizens, but of five people hand-picked by pro-government judge Walter Smith. In this judicial farce, the plaintiffs' time was limited while the government got all the time it needed. Important witnesses for the plaintiffs, such as infrared video experts who were prepared to testify that flashes seen on videotapes of the siege were gunfire from FBI agents firing at the Branch Davidians (to prevent them from escaping the burning building), were not allowed to appear. Other key evidence was also withheld from the already carefully screened "jury."

The official line on Waco has been a pack of lies from the very beginning. It was falsely alleged that there was child abuse at the church in Waco, and even that a methamphetamine lab was present (the latter to illegally enlist military support from the Texas National Guard). After the massacre, the feds lied about their use of incendiary devices, and then were forced to change their story when evidence turned up at a Texas Rangers armory.

The fact is that the FBI and BATF knew CS gas was flammable and dangerous. It had been banned by the United Nations. Yet for hours they pumped it into a church full of men, women and children. We're supposed to believe that incendiary devices were fired "near" the building, but had no

Have city officials inflated data on AIDS cases to protect their budgets? Shortly before the International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, last month, the San Francisco Chronicle published a report that the incidence of HIV infections among gay men in San Francisco had risen dramatically in the past 3 years: from around 500 new infections per year to as many as 900. When questioned about the basis for these figures, officials at the Department of Public Health were perceived as waffling and backpedaling, denying that the figures were "official." Starchild noted that the figures looked suspicious to the Bay Area Reporter, a gay community newspaper. An article on July 6 observed that the leaking of unpublished data to the media came "in the midst of heated negotiations in Washington, D.C. where Congress [was] poised to cut Ryan White CARE Act funding to San Francisco due to a dropped AIDS caseload."

To some observers it wasn’t obvious why there should have been any uncertainty about the incidence of HIV at all. Yet assessing the incidence of HIV is not as simple as counting positive test results. Most testing is done anonymously, and many people get tested repeatedly, as often as every 6 months. The DPH actually collated the results of more than two dozen studies. Many of them are ongoing studies which have been collecting data for up to 15 years. They are probably all federally funded, but they haven’t always reported increasing incidence. These studies were consistent in their findings about gay men. Over the last 3 years behavioral surveys have found, for example, declining reports of consistent condom use, and rectal gonorrhea has also increased in this population.

It is important to note that the increase was limited to gay men. In 1997 the incidence of HIV infections among heterosexual injection drug users was comparable to that

role in starting the fire? The feds WANTED those people incinerated. Trucks sent by the local fire department to put out the blaze were denied access to the area!

I had the privilege of meeting David Thibodeau, one of the 14 Waco survivors. He was calm, rational, and articulate, hardly the brainwashed "cult" member stereotyped by the media. This was an average young musician struggling to make sense of the fact that government agents murdered 82 of his friends and neighbors in broad daylight and have never been held accountable.

For those wishing to understand what really went down at Waco, I suggest renting and watching the documentary films "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" and "Waco: A New Revelation."

Sincerely,

Starchild

Libertarian for State Assembly, District 13

______________________________________________

George Lakoff, a distinguished linguist at UC Berkeley, argues in his book Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don’t (University of Chicago Press, 1996) that both liberals and conservatives--everybody, in his view--hold a familial model of the State. The difference between them is that conservatives see government as a disciplinary parent and liberals see the State as a nurturant parent. I think he does an unusually good job of getting inside an alien world view--I think his interpretation of conservatism is one many conservatives would unhesitatingly endorse--but it is still one which he rejects, on empirical grounds: Research--done, he doesn’t emphasize, by liberal psychologists--shows that the nurturant approach works better, a result in accord with my own prejudices.

It will be glaringly obviouls to libertarians what is still invisible to Lakoff, namely that he envisions no possibility except for casting citizens--us--in the role of children, with politicans and bureaucrats as our parents. It is remarkable to me that Lakoff--and everyone else, apparently--should be so comfortable with his conceptualization. But, however unflattering his analysis is to himself and fellow nonlibertarians, I think he is right--I had come to similar conclusions myself--and his ideas offer one possible insight into popular support for government atrocities.

No doubt there are many aspects to this puzzle. But one of them, I think, is pointed up very cleverly by one of Harry Browne’s ads, where a woman in shadows is recounting her long string of abuse experiences: "I was allowed to make fewer and fewer decisions for myself. . . . Then I wasn’t permitted to handle my own financial affairs. . . . Why do I keep returning to the same . . . POLITICIANS!" The psychological research to which Lakoff points with satisfaction also shows--if any demonstration were needed--that it is all but impossible for children to come to the conclusion that their parents are evil. The implications of total dependence on and vulnerability to malevolent beings are simply too frightening. There is hardly any limit to the cognitive distortions that can be induced, quite unconsciously, by severe parental abuse. Unbelievable is certainly an apt word for the government atrocities we have seen over and over--and over--except that they are quite real. For those who hold, or have held, an implicit model of the State as a harsh and punitive parent, the cognitive dissonance is not especially strong, even if they disagree on the specific acts being punished. For liberals, however, who view the government as benevolent and protective parent, the need for denial is compelling.

I have not heard this kind of motivation discussed in relation to the Holocaust, but its relevance there is not implausible. Daniel Goldhagen, in his famous Hitler’s Willing

There is an interesting and unpleasant irony in the stance of liberal American intellectuals today. A staple of psychological research lore of the past half century is the concept of the authoritarian personality. Religious fundamentalists are the stock example--rigid and absolutistic in their thinking, drawn to hierarchical structure and control--and I think liberals are quite right in regarding them as dangerous. But the risk they pose is overt; we know what to watch out for. Believers in the benevolent, protective family model of the State, however, will go on minimizing and denying atrocities, apologizing and making excuses for them, until it is too late. A benevolent protector can’t be too strong, moreover, so they will continue calling for increased government power. And they will be as convinced as the fundamentalists that they are serving the values of human well-being, and that their values are the correct ones. It’s not easy to get people to change what they think is good.

_________________________________________________

among gay men, but in the last 3 years it has dropped by almost half. (Among gay IDUs, who share both risk factors, the rate more than doubled.) This success story, for which needle exchange programs presumably get some credit, has been largely overlooked.

I don’t know the circumstances behind the leak to the Examiner. (It was the subsequent, more sensationalized account in the Chronicle which angered AIDS activists.) It was the stated intention of those who compiled the results to announce them at the Durban conference, and that would have been standard practice. The sensational nature of the findings, however, made it hard to keep them under wraps, and the complexity of their derivation made them difficult to defend in a popular medium.

Does that mean we can relax our guard about government involvement in science? Not quite. Libertarians have long observed that bureaucrats necessarily depend for their job security on the persistence of the problem they were established to deal with. The point is a delicate one with respect to AIDS prevention research, because many of those involved bring a personal passion to their work, having lost many friends to the epidemic and often being infected themselves. I don’t think any of them, given the choice, would avoid ending the epidemic in order to save their jobs. But these goals necessarily conflict, in either the public or the private sector. I remember attending a meeting at the UCSF Center for AIDS Prevention Studies 4 years ago, when protease inhibitors were first announced. The mood everywhere else--for instance, the cover of Newsweek--was jubilant. At CAPS it was anxious and depressed. What was said was that protease inhibitors were not going to turn out to be a panacea, that they were expensive and available only to the few (true), that inconsistent use would lead to the emergence of resistant strains of the virus (true), and that false hopes about them would lead to a resurgence of unsafe activity--just what was reported last month. Whether this was the only source of the anxiety and depression I don’t know.

A less extreme but more serious concern than falsification of data is just the effectiveness of behavioral research on prevention, whether of AIDS, smoking, drinking, or drug use. The investigators at CAPS are tops in the field, extremely bright, dedicated, and hard-working. But the reality is that no one at this point, certainly not academic psychologists, knows very much about how to change such behaviors. Given the quality of theorizing in mainstream American psychology in the past 100 years, I don’t expect any insights from this discipline in the next 100 years, either. And prevention workers everywhere are busy rediscovering Milton Friedman’s "Invisible Foot" Principle. A city cracks down on stores selling beer and cigarettes to teenagers--and finds that the main effect has been to boost business for merchants across the county line. Not that the research reports themselves paint such a dark picture. Just as prevention research workers would be in trouble if they actually solved the problem they are working on, they also have to show they are making progress in order to justify continued funding--a

[Editor’s Note: The following is reprinted from The Libertarian Enterprise, #82. The Libertarian Enterprise is available at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html.]

"The Patriot" is well worth seeing and easy to enjoy. I am heartened that it was made and pleased by the movie, overall. But I must admit that I walked away from the theater a good deal less enthusiastic about it than I hoped I would be.

Why was I so much more moved by "Braveheart"? It is ironic that a film about a fight which was victorious in establishing a monarchy and maintaining an aristocracy should bear more relevance to the struggle for liberty than a film about the American fight for Independence. More than ironic, it is sharply unsatisfying.

In both movies there is an emotional "hook" whereby the protagonist changes attitude and the audience follows along in empathy. In both flicks this hook is a matter of atrocity and suffering. A loved one dies a terrible, gratuitous death and the central character, previously unwilling to become involved, takes up arms against those who have done such wrong. Considered as a technique within the art of the screenplay we might as well admit its effectiveness. It would be missing the realities of cinema to imagine that these compelling structures of human drama would be skipped when they work so well. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with being reminded that the lives of our loved ones are in the balance in conflicts such as these.

In "Braveheart" the atrocity provokes a change of mind in William Wallace, and from there on out the film dwells on his struggle toward Scottish independence. Most especially the plot turns on the conflicts faced within and among the Scots themselves, the tendency of politics to foster betrayal, and the tension between rulers and the people at large. Without losing touch with the basic structure of an action film, "Braveheart" dwells on the tragedies of political strife. Every act of greatness or vileness is given a human face.

What of "The Patriot"? Here the shock of atrocity is repeated through the entire film, each ugly act surpassing the last. What we have here is not a hook. It is not used to provide the turning point for Benjamin Martin's character, it is the abiding focus of interest. It is a theme. It represents what the conflict is all about.

There are passing mentions of political independence, self-rule, and so on, but the film never takes us to the point where the motivations of the characters are a burning desire for liberty. Yes, the black militiaman is seeking the freedom from slavery that his term of service offers, and he goes further to stand by his comrades after he is a freed man. I would not disparage a soldier's willingess to fight for his friends. Indeed, that has arguably been the great inspiration in most fine military units. But that is camaraderie, not a yearning for independence. It is silent on the cause of liberty.

In this plot Tavington commits an ongoing stream of atrocities. This makes it easy to maintain the sense of motivation, both for the on-screen characters and the viewing audience, that these abominations must be stopped. As a result there is no need, and little room, for script that would deal with matters other than the horrors of war and the ever-present temptations, under the pressures of combat, of abandoning civil decency, laws of war, and basic human dignity. Those are worthy themes, of course, but I for one was hoping to see a film about the American gambit for Independence. What we got, instead, was a film about the American dislike of war-crimes and the lingering American turmoil over the realities of waging guerrilla war.

As treatments of those topics go, I have no real complaint. There is real depth of character in many instances, especially in the central character of Martin. The film provides enough tragedy and ambiguity to be genuinely thought-provoking, yet forges enough unmitigated heroism and triumph to satisfy and succeed both as entertainment and as inspiration.

What I do complain about is that this was the heart of the film. Though not nearly so dismal as A&E's recent film on George Washington's winter offensive, "The Crossing," it shares an absence of attention to the central political issues of the time. "The Crossing" depicts the rebellious American colonists as driven by selfish avarice because they wanted to avoid paying taxes. According to "The Patriot" they were striving to rid their counties of monsters who shot and burned defenseless citizens without end. In neither case are Americans portrayed as intent upon liberty. "The Patriot" leaves the viewer with the impression that if the Brits had just played fair then Americans could have continued to have

gotten along under the rule of Parliament well enough, thank you. In this sense "The Patriot" is virtually a Royalist flick. It does not show how the hearts of Americans burned for independence, nor how that vision contrasted with the aristocratic notions of the mother country.

To omit this is a betrayal of the central theme of the struggle. Where is the patriotism here, in the American sense of the word? Where are the ideas and ideals that kindled the Sons of Liberty and the Committees of Correspondence? If that story had been told to death, perhaps a focus elsewhere would be refreshing, but of course the situation is nothing like that. The fact is that the values of these Americans are so alien to the modern screen that the focus of attention has rested on the involvement of children in combat. Nice as it is to see somebody ruffle the feathers of the gun-shy mainstream press, nice as it is to see somebody face the fact that American children were competent with firearms and capable of aiding an armed struggle, these are not enough. Impressive as it is to be haunted by the specter of authorities burning scores of Americans to death in their church, that by itself is not enough.

What would be enough is a script where we hear voiced the values of political autonomy, local sovereignty, and the cessation of aristocracy. We should encounter men and women who insist on a political order that assures rights in personal property, communication, self defense, community defense, and discretion in worship. We need to hear the demand for freedom from taxes imposed by distant assemblies. These matters were foremost in the minds of the Americans of that day. They were significant issues even for those Americans who chose to remain loyal to the Crown.

By exaggerating the existence of atrocities, "The Patriot" leaves a faulty impression as to what inspired Americans to take up arms against the nation within which they long saw themselves as subjects. Why did the colonists cease to accept subjection of that sort? Wherein arose the sense of an American identity strong enough to displace loyalties to the Crown? It most certainly did not spring primarily from a revulsion at the murder of civilians or wounded soldiers! That sort of thing is, however, a perfect motivation for modern American audiences. Does it leave them with a sense of pride in America? Yes. Does it provide justification for a big fight? Definitely. Yet another victory to cheer where rough and scruffy Americans rally around the flag.

Does that have anything to do with the major issues at stake in that conflict, the ideals which converged in the symbolism of the Stars and Stripes? No, not really. Another battle well fought. Another stunning sequence of action scenes. Another paean to the love of family. Another bucket of popcorn and a large drink, thank you. Then everybody can go back home to pay their taxes, surrender their firearms, and submit to the occasional warrantless search and seizure--just like good Americans?

No, that is not the American way. But if you're looking for articulation as to why these things are antithetical to what America is about, "The Patriot" is largely silent. Which is a shame. It's a good movie. I enjoyed it. But it did not speak to the cause of liberty as it could have. I am perplexed as to why not. Perhaps in this day many who desire to champion liberty are simply ignorant of its nature. Whatever the answer, it indicates an American tragedy, but that is not the end of the story. Let us strive for enough heroism to live happily ever after. See you in the movies. . . .

_________________________________________________

tricky balance. Hence one finds the tiniest differences between treatment and control groups trumpeted as successes. The problem is not lack of competition; there are actually multiple large centers devoted to AIDS prevention research alone. But competition is of limited help when nobody can deliver the product.

But, never mind the limited results, prevention research is a very big business. Michael Petrelis, one of the founders of ACT UP in 1987, organized a protest in front of CAPS on August 7, demanding to know how its annual budget of $25,000,000 was spent. For members of Congress, the important thing is not so much the value of the research results; they have, after all, set up mechanisms to try to insure that the money goes to the best investigators. The important thing is to be able to say to constituents that they have allocated so many millions to AIDS research. The rest is out of their hands.

On a free market, on the other hand, one would expect risky behavior to be rather effectively constrained by insurance premiums, and it’s not clear how much of a market there would be for behavioral prevention research. But who knows, the greater accountability under private funding might lead to some actually useful results.

Anyone for separation of state and science?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

David Molony

chair@lpsf.org

(415) 516-3151

Kelly Russell Simpson

KellySimpson@pacbell.net

(415) 487-9325

Vince Grubbs

vwg@sirius.com

(415) 682-9482

Mike Acree

macree@psg.ucsf.edu

(415) 668-5794

Jerry Cullen

gtcullen@slip.net

(415) 567-9642

Mike Denny

mfd@MichaelDenny.net

(415) 616-0643

Starchild

dreamer@ziplink.net

(415) 626-3036

Jerry Pico

picoman@mindspring.com

(415) 885-5350

Opinions expressed in unsigned columns of the Golden Gate Libertarian do not necessarily represent those of anyone but the Editor.

Submissions are encouraged. The deadline (including agenda and calendar items) is the first Thursday of the month. Text sent by e-mail should be put in the body of the message (no attachments) and sent to Mike Acree at <macree@psg.ucsf.edu>. Photos and artwork should be mailed to Mike Acree, 859 45th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94121-3223. Please let us know if you want your item returned.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________