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
(2559 previous messages)
- 10:11pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2560
"As Clark tells it, the really decisive impulse propelling the
campaign was not Milosevic’s human rights violations in Kosovo
before March 1999; nor was it his wholesale eviction of the Kosovars
after the bombing began. What mattered most was the need to impose
NATO’s will on a leader whose defiance, first in Bosnia and then in
Kosovo, was undermining the credibility of American and European
diplomacy and of NATO’s willpower. But if the issue becomes
credibility, then the strategic logic becomes circular: NATO has to
bomb in order to prove that it will bomb. " - http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/cchrp/news071901.shtml
- 11:03pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2561
- 11:15pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2562
""" Preferences and principles are opposites. Preferences are
subjective while principles are objective. Values, that are
preferences, are something "to have," but values that are
principles, are something "to be."
The confusion over the use of the word values, in the context
of moral beliefs and attitudes, is not surprising, given the
comparatively short period it has been used in that sense.
Just over one hundred years ago the German philosopher,
Friedrich Vilhem Nietzsche began to speak of values in a new way.
He used values not as a verb, meaning to value or esteem
something; nor as a singular noun, meaning the measure of
something (the economic value of money, labour or property); but
in the plural, meaning the moral beliefs and attitudes of society.
- 01:37am Jun 16, 2002 EST (#2563
The Rove doctrine is simple in the extreme: "Maintain Base." The
base he lists sounds like a lyric from "Oklahoma!" —
"Farmers, Ranchers, Coal & Steel." Even before
we learned Mr. Rove's deepest, darkest secrets, we had already
cottoned on to the fact that looser standards on coal dust and
higher steel tariffs were campaign initiatives.
lchic: Primary bases that don't reflect policy with regards to
a 'modern' economy' !
- 07:51am Jun 16, 2002 EST (#2564
Showalter re-Wolfram >> ppmitra
"Science in the News" 6/16/02 2:12am
- 08:34am Jun 16, 2002 EST (#2565
Beautiful Week in Review , beautiful editorials, and fine
I'm wanting to proceed carefully, on my private concerns, and on
issues very much connected with missile defense. I have hopes of
being, in manj's phrase, "completely unshackled" - -
and my recent conversations with CIA are consistent with that.
But the meaning of words, and the context in which action is
possible, need to be considered. CIA seems to want, and want very
much, to restrict direct contact between me and an officer of the
agency who I contacted - and so this is a reasonable channel.
The most key point in my last week's conversation with CIA is
expressed in the following statement - a statement dictated to me
emphatically, forcefully, by a C.I.A. official. The statement is
well connected, I feel, with material in the TIMES today. Here is
" C.I.A. has no interest in any of M.Robert
(in my notes I have "my" rather than "M. Robert Showalter" - but
the statement just above, with that sustitution, clear in context -
was clearly and forcefully repeated.)
What can the bolded words above reasonably mean? If "to have
no interest" means " not to care" - I'd find the phrase
inconsistent with the reasonable and probable. I believe most other
people would, as well, if they consider what has been said and done.
If "to have no interest" means "to have no title in, no
property values in, no special right to control" then I find the
statement reasonable, and a statement that may be the basis for
acceptable, practical, honorable conduct for all involved.
There are some facts that can be established, from the evidence
of this thread. C.I.A. may not care about any of my material.
However, from time to time, gisterme has shown evidence of
caring. And, by a reasonable "collection of dots" and "connection of
dots," gisterme may reasonably be judged to have clear links,
and high ones, with the Bush administration.
I think it is important, and in the national interest, for people
to know how this matter has been handled so far. I've been trying to
work in the reasonable national interest, and believe I have done
5/4/02 10:35am ... MD2000 rshow55
New York Times on the Web Forums Science