Juan Carlos Garelli wrote:
>
> Hear, hear,
>
> The same kind of criticism as Bob Smith pointed out I strongly
> second.
>
> What Margaret Tarbet writes cannot possibly be overemphasized.
>
> I repeat, what are we doing on this list? Just chatting as we were
> having five o'clock tea.
>
> I see no proposals to set something into action and submit them to
> discussion.
>
> My own posts about maternal care have been ignored when they did
> propose a series of complex material actions to be considered, at the
> very least; since whatever organization we may find fit to make our
> lives better will inevitably carried out by humans, and we can't have
> mentally deranged persons occupying crucial social positions in a
> truly democratic society. As to how this should be implemented, it is
> an open question, a matter of debate, a matter of seeking the
> opinions of the few specialists we have left, after the general
> corruption in psychology during the last 2 decades razed what had
> been started in the sixties. We need to organize multidsiciplinary
> groups, to set the bases of strategies with the aim to give rise to
> social change.
>
> JC Garelli
> ........
> If I am not for myself, who will be for me?  But if I am only for
> myself, what am I? ... And if not now, when?
>  -- Rabbi Hillel, called The Babylonian (ca. 60 BCE)
>
> Juan Carlos Garelli, M.D., Ph.D.
> Department of Early Development
> Attachment Research Center
> University of Buenos Aires

        I agree. Bob and Margaret have a right to expect more from this
List than ideological banter. This does not mean that political (or
anti-political) principles have no place. But what you are proposing,
Juan, is the use of valid scientific research and theory to align
ourselves with activists opposed the anti-democratic and statist
attitudes of those in power by exposing their sociopathic behavior as
such.
        It seems that we need to this in a way that avoids spurious
lawsuits. In the USA there are what is called SLAP suits used to silence
debate on radical issues by suing those who challenge authorities. That
is why the scientific basis of our approach is so important. If sued, we
would need to be able to defend our scientific views in court. The SLAP
suits themselves are controversial and thus vulnerable to attack in
themselves by radicals lawyers and scientists. Is there a solicitor or
lawyer in the house?
      The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) has
natural scientists, social scientists and lawyers as members. The
activist attitude of FAS would be complementary to what we are seeking to
do. I could start a discussion at the FAS website (http://www.fas.org/)
about our activities such as a proposed activist journal.

The current issue of the F.A.S. Public Interest Report for May/June 1997
has an activist macro-economic approach to the political implications
of the Consumer Price Index. The PRESIDENT of FAS , Jeremy Stone, wrote
an article that should be dear to our hearts, entitled:

        "Pointless Political Haggling While a Nation Starves" in this
article he criticizes the political haggling over the US supply of food
to North Korea.

        My point is the time is right for an alliance of
anti-authoritarian activists and scientists to initate a solid basis
for radical social change. Juan's research on attachment theory and
psychopathy/sociopathy in politicians is a LONG-TERM solution to the ROOT
of social problems worldwide.

        An activist-scientist alliance is just what is needed. With
careful application of research to various social problems we can
identify the sociopathic aspects of political behavior and publicly
discredit them. There are some who will fraudlently attempt to label our
enterprise as a "witch-hunt" but with appropriate care thsi can be
discredited ,too.

        Sorry for the length of this reply but I feel somewhat positive
about the prospects for this. I think an on-line refereed journal to
relate theoretical and practical issues in attachment research and other
biosocial investigations is just the ticket. With rigourous scientific
and anti-authoritarian analysis this could create a fundamental change in
our approach to social problems away from statist dogma toward Human
Rights in the ultimate sense.

                        Howard