New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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
(1733 previous messages)
- 08:16am Apr 24, 2002 EST (#1734
You can always find more context -- in an endless regress.
Questions of "what matters?" are important -- but to use
them, the question "and how much do the things involved matter?" has
to be answered, too. Language alone can't judge weights, because
language, standing alone, isn't quantitative. A time comes where
there has to be judgement.
- 08:20am Apr 24, 2002 EST (#1735
I thought George W. Sadat by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/opinion/17FRIE.html
was a constructive piece, MD1412 rshow55
4/17/02 1:18pm . I think Friedman's piece today is constructive
as well. Perhaps, in light of the whole situation, associating the
words "europeans" and "fools" may be forgivable, if regrettable,
when set beside the wrongs and infelicities of the ME situation, and
the follies Friedman has had to listen to and deal with. He's
maintained "a certain detachment" from the views of others involved,
though no one really expects him to be completely neutral, nor
reasonably expects the NYT to be entirely neutral, in the ME.
Friedman is for peaceful solutions, he sees many points of view, and
if there were many others with his respect for facts and context,
we'd have less of a mess in the ME and elsewhere.
George W. Sadat ends:
"I believe one of Don Rumsfeld's Washington rules
is: If you have a problem and you can't solve it, enlarge it.
Either we now go all the way toward peace and demand that every
party step up to it — Palestinians, Israelis and Arabs — or they
will keep going all the way the other way, blowing out one
civilizational barrier after another until their war touches us."
He's working for that, and it is a hopeful time, for all the
terrors and strains we face. The forces and fictions that create and
sustain war are more constrained, more vulnerable and more visable
than they used to be. Friedman, and the NYT, are making those forces
and fictions more vulnerable, and more visable.
Friedman's piece today, What Day Is It? http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
addresses very practical imperatives -- leaders in the Middle East,
and the nations they represent, must face the truth as it is --
including truths that are unpleasant, and that require
self-examination. Friedman frames it in terms of time -
"Abdullah wants to ignore yesterday, Sharon wants
to ignore tomorrow, and Arafat wants to ignore today."
Of course, these leaders are each ignoring important things that
have to be faced about things past, present, and future - and
ignoring many other things as well, but a single column can't touch
- 08:21am Apr 24, 2002 EST (#1736
The current situation is ugly.
Is "going a long way towards peace, greatly improving on the
situation now" thinkable? It is if the people involved are prepared
to face facts, make balanced decisions, and examine not only the
shortcomings of others, but their own.
In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm
Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the exact
" Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts to
one another and to the whole."
Friedman's piece today ends with writing that I think is profound
as well as artful:
"Bill Clinton said at Camp David, "We may not
succeed but we're sure going to get caught trying." Mr. Bush
cannot remake Abdullah, Sharon or Arafat, but he can get caught
trying, by speaking the truth to them and their societies — where
there are still many, many people desperate to save the future
from leaders who can't figure out what day it is. "
Native English speakers reading that will hear "get caught lying"
in their heads. To "get caught trying" can be beautiful, in a
limited way. The "get caught lying" is ugly. Lies are ugly, and lead
to ugliness. There are too many of them.
Everybody makes mistakes, and if the sociologists are to be
believed, everybody decieves both themselves and others on occasion.
It is a good thing that imperfect people, liars, and intellectually
and morally flawed human beings can sometimes get things right - for
otherwise there would be no truth to be found.
The question isn't a simple "can we do better?" because people do
do many of the things that make for peace, comfort, and prosperity
New York Times on the Web Forums Science