New York Times on the Web Forums
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?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(189 previous messages)
- 11:38pm Mar 3, 2002 EST (#190
cont. interview w/Kucinich
LOTTMAN: We addressed some of the political, environmental, and
spiritual aspects of this. One thing I'm also interested in is the
psychological. When people are stressed, when things are confusing,
people look up to the sky—it makes them feel better. So what would
the implications be of the skies potentially becoming a
KUCINICH: Well, you know, there's a Christian prayer called the
“our Father,” which has the words, 'thy kingdom come, thy will be
done, on earth as it is in heaven.' We view the sky as the
connection to that principle of eternity, to that idea of something
transcendent in our lives. The violence to that belief in a heaven,
in a transcendence, in some universal beneficence; to see the skies,
the universe itself, threatened with the prospect of nuclear
warfare, in the heavens, it is psychologically challenging, and
spiritually punishing to invite the prospect of such an exchange of
nuclear weapons between nations in outer space.
And the very fact that a nation would prepare for that while its
people do not have decent health care, while its children remain not
well educated in many places, while its environment has so many
challenges to keep the air and the water clean, while people are
still struggling to have meaningful employment... There are so many
challenges we face here on earth to make our lives more livable,
more meaningful. And it seems as though the projection of fear, of
the instrumentalities of violence into outer space, is a threat to
all of the aspirations which all of us have. Not only in this
country, but on the planet.
We need to encourage people to be more than they are. We need to
encourage people to unlock their own inner potential to the fullest.
We need to engage with each other as brothers and sisters, to find
peace and love, and to reciprocate their discoveries. The idea of a
new arms race, of taking that image of a restless quest for
discovery and to reach up to the sky as an expression of our
limitless potential—to take that and to put it in the context of an
arms race is to demean humanity. We must think more of ourselves. We
must think more of each other. And we must demand of our nation that
it do better.
LOTTMAN: The military powers that be, the Space Command, often
express the concern that someone else is going to use outer space to
harm the United States. What do you think of that concern? Is it
justified, and if it is...
KUCINICH: You know, if we have fear, it's up to us to go to our
neighbor, to go to our brother and sister, and say, 'look, let us
not proceed in our affairs of state, in a way that we feel that we
have to threaten each other. Let us participate in your success as a
nation, so that you can take care of your people and receive through
reciprocation, a sense of safety and security.' Because I think that
the way that we can best bring about peace on this earth is through
reaching—opening up our hearts, reaching out to people.
We can never have peace through armaments. That's a false peace.
We can never pretend that we can reach security in this country
through a matter of piling arms upon arms. There's no security in
that. The only real security is through love and compassion and
seeking peace. And the military, while they might have important
work to do in the sense of basic defense, should not be charged with
the responsibility of providing peace. That's an individual matter.
It's a national matter.
And we need to, actually, we're at a moment when we need to
change the way we look at matters of war and peace. That's one of
the reasons that I've proposed a department of peace, which would
use nonviolence as an organizing principle, in international and
domestic policy. So that we can look at peace as being inevitable,
not war being inevitable. We can look at our domestic policy for
race relations, for domestic violence, for spousal abuse, for gangs,
and all those areas where we
- 01:19am Mar 4, 2002 EST (#191
If looking at the sky, that's a militarised sky, is to cause
psychological trauma ..... then it's the duty of 'every' citizen
so traumatised to take out a 'group action' against offending an
Cash $$$ payouts are an 'understood' medium of
So in cash terms per individual - how much cash would it take
to compensate for loss of that sense of release and freedom via
- 01:23am Mar 4, 2002 EST (#192
But for all these cases, there are available defenses that
would never work in simpler crimes. Corporate defendants can argue
not only that they are not the criminals, but also that a crime
never took place. Try that in a liquor store robbery.
And prosecutors have to prove that defendants intended to
defraud, not just that people lost their life savings by believing
what they said. Money missing from the cash register is a crime;
money missing from an investment might not be.
So corporate criminal cases often revolve around a concept
called "professional reliance" — meaning that everything the
executives did was first approved by accountants and lawyers, so
there could not be the intent to commit a crime. Enron
executives have repeatedly pointed to the approvals they received
from Andersen in constructing the Byzantine partnerships that
helped bring the company down.
- 01:30am Mar 4, 2002 EST (#193
'small guy with overgrown EGO'- the problem
4. And finaly, the "human factor". The US President's power at
home is very limited. While left almost unchecked and unrestrained
abroad, except by US alias. Which became less and less
strategically important. So you get a small guy with overgrown EGO
came to the top of the World's power just to find out
limited what he can do at home
can he be abroad
to live a desired "legacy". almarst-2001
New York Times on the Web Forums