June 3, 2005
BOMBS IN THE SKY, NOT BOOTS ON THE GROUND:
Immaculate Destruction (FRANCES FITZGERALD, 6/03/05, NY Times)
[T]he idea of putting weapons in space has its roots in American national mythology and in a strain of 19th-century strategic thinking that, curiously enough, seems quite close to that of the Bush administration. [...]In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Midwestern Republicans, among them Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana and Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, promoted similar strategies. They were isolationists in regard to Europe, which they considered the corrupt Old World, but they rivaled Theodore Roosevelt in their enthusiasm for American imperial adventures to the south and the west. They therefore became advocates of a powerful navy, for it could defend American shores against European powers and extend American reach through the Caribbean and into the Pacific. Later they resisted plans for enlarging the Army because the only function of a large army, as they saw it, would be to intervene in European conflicts. With the advent of the airplane, they championed the air force as a substitute for boots on the ground.
In effect their strategy was to project power while remaining isolated: in terms of the national mythology, they wanted America to pursue its God-given mission abroad while remaining the virgin land. While the Democrats would fight land wars, compromise and negotiate, Midwestern Republicans would preach the American way of life and command the world from the heights of the air and the distances of the sea. Their ideal would surely have been space weaponry.
The tragedy of the 20th Century is that Democrats did indeed drag us into wasteful and futile land wars. Even Iraq demonstrates the danger that if you have a large standing army you'll use it, no matter how inappropriate to the task at hand. Posted by Orrin Judd at June 3, 2005 6:00 AM
Republicans are like the protagonists in the Zappa tune "Catholic Girls" -so prim and proper for the nuns but giving barneyfranks in the back of the bus at every opportunity.
Posted by: lonbud at June 3, 2005 10:09 AMSeems Beveridge and Taft were ahead of their times. I like the approach.
Very nice comment lonbud; but like Jon I miss the point. And why aren't you in class ... or are you?
Posted by: Genecis at June 3, 2005 10:40 AMIt's not sex, so what's the big deal?
It's natural, everybody does it. It's human nature.
Posted by: Sandy P. at June 3, 2005 10:58 AM"Nurse Ratched! Lon's off his meds again."
Posted by: Mike Morley at June 3, 2005 11:09 AMThat's funny, I was just thinking how Liberal Independents remind me of the old Lesley Gore song, "Judy's Turn to Cry." See, the Liberals pinned their hopes on the Democrats (Johnny) for happiness, but then the Democrats betrayed them bet getting wobbly during the 90's with the Conservatives (Judy). So the Liberal Independent start flirting with even more liberal outfits like the Green Party (that guy that Lesley started making out with - I don't think he's ever named) to get even with Johnny. Johnny sees this and flies into a violent rage, socking the guy in the mouth. And the song ends with Lesley realizing that only a violent psychopath like Johnny would do that because he loves her so and the Conservatives and Judy are left on the front stoop crying their eyes out.
No, it doesn't make much sense, but neither did lonbud's Zappa reference.
Someday I'll tell you how Petula Clark's Downtown is really an analogy to the demise of Tammany Hall.
I miss bart. He could at least write well. What happened to him?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 3, 2005 11:48 AMi read an interesting comment the other day, vis a vis robotic combat technology -- the last human fighter pilot has already been born. you could probably extend this to say the last batch of american pilots is already in training. interesting parallels to the Terminator movies.
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 12:34 PMOJ, you can't control events on the ground without infantry. Do you really think that we can protect our interests in the world without it?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at June 3, 2005 12:47 PMRobert:
Yes. The lack of an infantry would force us to resort more readily to nuclear weapons. After the second or third time we'd be able to get our way rather easily.
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 12:53 PMGov. Breck:
Jeez, I always 'Downtown' was an allegory on the Council of Trent.
(learn something every day!)
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at June 3, 2005 1:13 PMGov:
Have I mentioned that They Might Be Giants' Particle Man is in fact a radical commentary on scientism, christianity, and humanism as means of approaching God?
I am, however, still trying to decode the intricate symbolism of Ten Apples Up On Top.
Posted by: Mike Earl at June 3, 2005 1:21 PMMike: After the furor over the overt anti-EU message of Istanbul (not Constantinople), they really had to hide their message deep in the code.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 3, 2005 1:55 PMre: Ten Apples Up On Top
The answers you seek are in "Go Dog Go".
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 3, 2005 2:18 PMBetween the first and the second time, anybody that had nukes would have been sure to have dropped them on us.
Nuclear deterrence is like a firecracker. Works only once.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2005 8:41 PMHow?
Why?
Think North Korea can deliver them or would bomb us when we took out Saddam? Why don't they do it now?
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 9:40 PMand if pigs had wings hats would still be in style.
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 9:48 PMwhy didn't the cccp bomb us as soon as they had nukes ?
Posted by: cjm at June 3, 2005 11:19 PMSpace Weapons are most effective for education, the average Nork is as ignorant of American Power as the average French Philosopher. Let hem see one of our battlewagon fleets above visiting our properly decorated terrritories, then they will be aware.
Illustrated:
here
Was/is "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" really about LSD, or not?
Posted by: Dave W. at June 4, 2005 9:44 PMWhy not? What would they have to lose?
How? In a shipping container.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 6, 2005 4:00 PMYes, what do they have to lose? But they still don't do it.
So it would be a one off? that's hardly going to effective.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2005 4:14 PM