the language in the book often shiftednto the absurd (one section headingnactually read: “A Nuclear Attack CannKill You but Its Dangers Can BenAvoided”), and the plan was finallyndownscaled to a printing of 20 millionncopies, to be distributed through localncivil defense offices.nNonetheless, the document viewednthe fabric of American society as solid,nmoral, and ideal-driven, capable ofnhandling the strains of civil defense. Innhis own introduction, Kennedy callednon American families to remember thenfrontier experience, “where pioneersnlived under the constant threat of Indiannattack. If we are to maintain . . . thenkind of nation they dreamed of. . .neach of us must be willing not merelynto die for his country; but to live for it.”nThe AIDS booklet from SurgeonnGeneral C. Everett Koop, now in thenmails to every American home, offersnan instructive contrast. The tone ofnurgency is the same (“you must discuss”nthese things); so is the enthusiasmn(“Above all, keep an upbeat attitude”).nThe document does make anpassing reference to “family” (thoughnit prefers the phrase “those you love”),nand it endorses “responsible behavior,”n”personal values,” and “sex with onenmutually faithful, uninfected partner.”nHowever, its overall portrait ofnAmerican society is that of a nation ofnautonomous, sex-obsessed individualsn— a population fairly careless, whethernit be while shooting up drugs or adjustingnand lubricating condoms. It portraysna people unworthy of their liberty.nIn its message to (and by implicationnabout) every American, the documentngives attention to the risk of catchingnAIDS through “oral, anal or vaginal”nintercourse, cautioning that the analnsort is particularly “risky.” It offers anninteresting description of the passage ofn”semen or vaginal fluids” through “thenvagina, penis, rectum or mouth.” Kissingnand touching bowel movementsnare OK, but “sex with someone youndon’t know well” is called “risky behavior,”nas is sharing needles.nAdapting the Dear Abby pose. UnclenSam also offers citizens guidancenon casual sex and condom use. Decisionsnon the former, the documentnsays, should be based partly on thenanswer to the question, “How manynpeople have they been to bed with?”nCautioning that “condoms are far fromnbeing foolproof,” our government endorsesnthe latex over the lambskin varietynand suggests using spermicide innthe tip and on the outside.nMore important, though, are thenphotos. We see here only obscurengroupings or single individuals, offeringnus warnings and sharing wisdom.nFamilies are nonexistent. Children arenprimarily a small, special category ofnvictims, their origin unrelated to thenbody fluids being passed out.nif Koop had mailed this booklet outn75 years ago, he would have beennprosecuted under federal postal statutesnfor distributing obscene material.nEven 25 years ago, as the Civil Defensenbook shows, America’s publicnface was that of a moral, familycenterednpeople. The AIDS booklet,nthough, is designed for a nation neithernmoral nor free. Its creators target thenneeds of an irresponsible, dependentnpopulation, citizens managed by overlordsnwho encourage their pleasuresnand soothe their pains.nIt may not be an accurate picture.nThe relevant point is that officialnWashington thinks it is.n—Allan CarlsonnA new word, “hazing,” has washednonto the pages of the Soviet press withnthe wave of glasnost. It denotes thenharassment, oppression, and humiliationnsuffered by new conscripts,n”greenhorns,” at the hands ofn”grandfathers” — the Soviet term fornsoldiers who are nearing the end ofntheir conscription term. The subjectnwas broached by Yuri Polyakov in hisnstory “A Hundred Days to the DischargenOrder” printed in the Novembern1987 issue of the magazine Yunost.nPolyakov gave a chilling depiction ofnthe mores prevailing in today’s Sovietnarmed forces, the hazing and the pettyntyranny of the NCO’s. Newspapersnhave been bombarded ever since withnletters from readers—both laudatorynand condemnatory. The national pressnis still pursuing the subject. The armynnewspaper Krasnaya zvezda recentlynweighed in with an article, “Beyondnthe Black Pale,” by its special correspondentnA. Khorev. He does notnattempt to refute the fact of hazing innthe armed forces but blames suchn”non-regulation relationships” on thennn”period of stagnation” in Soviet history.nOf course, it is easy to agree withnKrasnaya zvezda’s special correspondentnwhen he observes that “it has longnbeen known, correctiy, that the armednforces are society in microcosm.”nOn the other hand, many membersnof the armed services, both privates andnofficers, attack Polyakov’s credibilitynand declare, in articles and letters-tothe-editor,nthat hazing is a figment ofnthe writer’s imagination. Thus, thenmagazine Sovetsky patriot on March 2npublished an “open letter” to the authornof the hit story. The letter undernthe tide “At Odds With the Truth” wasnpenned by serviceman Yuri Fedorko,nwho insists that hazing is nowhere to benfound in today’s armed forces and thatnthe environment described by Polyakovnis nothing other than a “fictional, abstractnarmy.”nUnfortunately, many current articlesnand letter columns leave no doubt thatnhazing is very much in evidence in thenservices. Small wonder, for “the armednforces are society in microcosm,” asnKrasnaya zvezda correctly pointed out.nSo long as “regulation relationships”nare being violated in society at large,nhow could the services escape thenproblem? Under the Soviet constitution,nsupreme power in the countrynshould reside with the freely electednSoviets — from the bottom to the veryntop. In reality, the party and its “shieldnand sword,” the KGB, wield monopolynpower. Under the constitution, allnSoviet republics have joined the unionnon a voluntary basis and can secedenany time they wish . . . And so it goesnin all spheres of Soviet life. Glasnostnhas merely highlighted what used to benhidden from view.nSo far the Soviet press has given nonevidence that career officers engage inn”assault and battery.” And so a questionnarises: if the planned reforms andn”learning at the school of democratization”nhit a rocky road and result innlarge-scale strife—like the current disturbancesnin Azerbaijan and Armenian—who will become the target of thenresentment and hatred of the veteransnwho once suff^ered as “greenhorns”nand subsequently meted out sufferingnas “grandfathers”?n—Mihajlo MihajlovnJULY 1988 ISn