Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
I'll say this about Friedman compared to Chomsky now.
Friedman paints pictures -- gives descriptions that are intuitive
- disconnected from nuts-and-bolts details and that means
everything he says is liable, in some way or another, to be a
"fallacy of misplaced concreteness" if you trust it too much.
Chomsky does all those things, but very many times, especially in
his academic work, he takes a dominating position based on
very focused analytical-mathematical positions, that he
claims great status for - that others may not understand, but often
(in my own view, too often) defer to. That's another kind of
"fallacy of misplaced concreteness."
Friedman and Chomsky are both probably very good at picking out
each other's shortcomings.
Whenever it matters in practice anything either one says
needs to be checked against what's known, and needs to be
checked structurally in terms of the match between assumptions and
the case at hand.
Same as anybody else.
- 01:36pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1239
The look at the whole system is usefull, but shouldn' we first to
ask: "What is or should be the PURPOSE of the system?
Based on what I know, I bet Friedman talks about globalization.
It is my understanding, he is convinced the globalization is GOOD
and will help the world to reach the "level" of US, primerelly via
advancement of technology and democratization of societies.
Before going any futher, I would like to undertand what in his
mind is GOOD. Only then can we judge the impact of Globalization.
- 01:38pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1240
Robert Showalter firstname.lastname@example.org
Friedman and Chomsky also have some very good reasons for
disliking each other, and I think these reasons are insoluble, and
should simply be tolerated.
They have different aesthetics that relate to conduct. They have
different senses of fair play, in specific interactions. They are
each, in their way, ferocious and intolerant elitists -- but they
have different standards, and are open minded, and intolerant, about
For checking questions of fact, or negotiation about anything
important enough so that people have to keep their temper, these
differences shouldn't get in the way, if only they can be
But they are BIG differences. Some things that look ugly to
Friedman will look beautiful to Chomsky, and vice versa. And that
can't be changed.
- 01:42pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1241
Robert Showalter email@example.com
I missed your point - and posted not having read it. Pardon me.
My computer is under so much attack that I disconnect my modem
cable, usually, when I'm not actually transmitting. And sometimes I
forget to read first --please pardon me.
Let me think about what you say. But first, here's a reflexive
remark. Discussions of PURPOSE are crucial, and when different
negotiators have different purposes, it helps if that is known, at
least well enough known so that the people involved can give
If people lie about their purpose (and the US often did just this
at the nuclear arms talks, in my opinion) that's a very serious
sabotage of the proceedings.
But I would like to focus on checking of facts because,
without it, sorting out such problems, or such deceptions, often
can't be done.
- 01:55pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1242
Noting the Korean stance:
President Bush-the-elder was in active service in WWII (Pacific).
General MaCarthy (HQ based down the road here) wanted to push
through N.Korea to the Chinese border. Trueman worked out that China
had a neverending capacity re population and Pulled MaCarthy
(kicking and screaming against that President's orders) OUT.
There is conjecture that Bush-the-younger the current President
who although 'rich' has only ventured off-shore three times ... is a
puppet President (Marionette) ...
The question is .. who does influence and set the current agenda
for US foreign policy? Judging by the attitude to Korea (would
Bush-the-younger know where this country is on a world map?) it
seems that there are a lot of 'OLD' attitudes creeping in.
Reclusive leader Kim Jong-il of North Korea has one thing going
for him. Unlike Bush-the-younger, Kim went abroad to study. If he
spent time being educated in Germany, then, there the attitude
regarding attonement for the Sins-of-their-fathers, is a tidal wave
in their political and social culture ... the Germans TRY to do the
right thing as a Nation .... and subconsciously at least this should
have influenced Kim.
[There's a question over Korean Political Policies - are these
set by NKorea or set for them by under influence of China ... in
light of USA foreign policy?]
That Bush-the-younger never made the 'effort' to spend time
abroad suggests that the concept of Presidential Office may have
been a mantle placed over him, rather than his real ambition .....
the guy may have few ambitions.
If Bush-the-younger foreign policy is driven by a former WWII
Pacific warrior - Bush-the-elder, without absorbing the elements of
change of the past half century ... then, the outlook is neither
'considered' nor 'good'.
- 01:58pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1243
Pardon my comment here Showalter, but, i thought you lived in
the Land of the Free.
" computer is under so much attack that I disconnect my modem
cable, usually, when I'm not actually transmitting"
I take it the 'land of the free' - ISN'T!
- 01:59pm Mar 21, 2001 EST (#1244
I have many serious reservations about the notions that
Iechnological advancement will always improve the life of ordinary
human being. Even democratization will not authomatically do so. My
particular disagreement is with the notion that US socio-economic
model can and should be copyed everywere.
To give just a simplistic example, the 20th Century have seen the
greatest advancement in all aspect so cherished by Mr. Friedman, as
well as the greates disasters and attrocities in the Human History.
(10646 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums Science